SOCIALISM  AND  ANARCHISM. 


"  DISSERTATION  IN  PART  FULFILMENT  OF  THE 
CONDITIONS  NECESSARY  FOR  THE  ATTAIN- 
MENT OF  THE  DEGREE  OF  DOCTOR  OF 
PHILOSOPHY,  SCHOOL  OF  POLITICAL 
SCIENCE,  COLUMBIA  COLLEGE:'1 


BY 


HERBERT  LEVI  OSGOOD,  A.M., 


Seligman  Fellow. 


Boston,  U.S.A.,  and  London  : 


GIXN  &  COMPANY,  PUBLISHERS. 


1889. 


Copyright,  1889,  by  Ginn  &  Co. 


SCIENTIFIC  SOCIALISM. 


RODBERTUS. 


HE  current  ideas  in  this  country  respecting  theoretical 


J-  socialism  are  derived  chiefly  from  the  last  work  of  Marx, 
Das  Kapital.  The  views  which  prevail  concerning  the  policy 
of  the  socialists  are  such  as  the  International,  the  Socialistic 
Labor  Party,  and  the  Anarchists  have  given  rise  to.  These  are 
thought  to  be  the  only  possible  theories  and  policy.  But  many 
of  the  German  economists  have  come  to  regard  Rodbertus  as 
the  real  master  of  scientific  socialism,  and  to  assign  Marx  to  a 
secondary  place  as  a  theorist.  There  are  also  some  important 
points  wherein  his  views  differ  from  those  of  Marx.  The  repu- 
tation which  Rodbertus  has  acquired  as  a  thinker,  and  the 
inherent  excellence  of  his  works,  furnish  the  excuse  for  this 
attempt  to  outline  his  life  and  theory.1 

Carl  Rodbertus,  like  Marx  and  Lassalle,  was  educated  amid 
the  movements  which  led  to  the  revolution  of  1848,  and  received 

1  In  order  to  avoid  the  multiplication  of  references,  the  titles  of  the  most  important 
works  of  (and  about)  Rodbertus  which  have  been  used  in  preparing  this  article  are 
given  here  together. 

Zur  Erkentniss  unserer  staatsivirthschaftlichen  Zusliznde.    1 842. 

Sociale  Briefe  an  von  Kirchmann  : 

Erster  Brief,  Die  sociale  Bedeutung  der  Staatsivirthschaft.  1850.  Reprinted  in 
1885.    This  edition  contains  Rodbertus'  history  of  crises. 

Zweiter  Brief  und  dritter  Brief  appeared  first  in  1 850  and  185 1,  but  were 
reprinted  together  in  1875  under  the  title :  Zicr  Beleuchtung  der  socialen  Frage. 
The  Second  Letter  contains  the  author's  theory  of  the  distribution  of  the  national 
product.  The  most  important  portion  of  it  has  been  reprinted  in  the  first  volume  of 
R.  Meyer's  Emancipationskampf  des  vierten  Standes.  The  Third  Letter  contains 
Rodbertus'  theory  of  rent  and  the  argument  against  Ricardo's  doctrine. 

Vierter  Brief  Das  Kapital,  was  published  in  1884  by  Wagner  and  Kozak 
from  the  literary  remains  of  Rodbertus.  It  contains  more  important  material  than 
any  other  in  the  series.  Besides  a  resumi  of  his  theory  of  rent  and  of  crises,  Rodber- 
tus unfolds  in  this  his  doctrine  of  capital,  and  describes  society  as  it  is  organized, 
with  private  property  in  land  and  capital,  and  as  it  will  be  when  private  ownership 
shall  be  abolished. 

In  1885  that  which  the  author  had  completed  of  the  second  part  of  the  Fourth 


SCIENTIFIC  SOCIALISM. 


561 


his  practical  training  during  that  revolution.  Born  in  1 805,  the 
son  of  a  professor  of  law  in  the  University  of  Greifswald,  he 
himself  studied  law,  history,  political  economy,  and  philology  at 
various  universities  ;  and,  after  a  brief  time  spent  in  travel,  bought 
the  estate  of  Jagetzow,  in  Pomerania,  where  he  settled  down 
to  the  life  of  a  landed  proprietor.  The  agitations  preceding 
1848  called  him  from  seclusion  to  a  place  in  the  Provincial  Diet, 
and  afterwards  in  the  Second  United  Diet,  which  met  at  Berlin 
in  1847.  While  in  this  body  he  acted  as  member  of  a  commis- 
sion to  prepare  a  new  election  law  for  the  National  Assembly. 
The  king  offered  him  a  patent  of  nobility,  but  this  honor  Rod- 
bertus  declined.  Early  in  the  next  year  he  was  elected  to  the 
new  Constitutional  Assembly.  Later  he  was  for  a  short  time 
member  of  the  cabinet,  but  resigned  because  he  saw  that  the 
government  would  not  come  to  terms  with  the  parliament  at 
Frankfort.  During  1849  Rodbertus  labored  at  Berlin  to  secure 
the  acceptance  of  the  constitution  of  Frankfort ;  but  it  was  in 
vain.  After  that  was  rejected,  and  the  political  reaction  set  in, 
he  retired  from  public  life,  never  to  enter  it  again.  When  the 
restoration  of  the  German  unity  was  in  progress,  he  sympathized 
fully  with  the  policy  of  Bismarck  and  the  Prussian  monarchy, 

Social  Letter  was  published.  It  contains  some  very  important  material  on  the  method 
of  transition  to  the  socialistic  state. 

Zur  Erklarung  und  Abhiilfe  der  heutigen  Kreditnoth  des  Grundbesitzes. 
Two  volumes,  1868  and  1869.  This  contains  the  explanation  of  the  crisis  in  German 
landed  property,  and  of  the  Rentenprincip. 

Rodbertus'  articles  on  the  economic  history  of  Rome,  Untersuchen  auf  dem  Gebiete 
der  Xationalokonomie  des  klassischen  Alterthums,  are  to  be  found  in  Hildebrand's 
Jahrbiicher.    They  appeared,  1864-74,  in  volumes  ii.  to  xxiii. 

Briefe  und  socialpolitische  Aufslitze,  issued  in  two  volumes,  by  R.  Meyer, 
Berlin,  1882,  contain  Rodbertus'  correspondence  with  Meyer  from  1871  to  his  death 
in  1875,  and  many  short  articles  which  were  contributed  to  the  Berlin  Revue. 

Prof.  Adolph  Wagner  contributed  to  the  Tubinger  Zeifschrift,  in  1878,  under 
the  title,  Einiges  von  und  ilber  Rodbertus,  some  additional  correspondence  and 
a  reprint  of  the  Normal-Arbeitstag. 

Briefe  von  Ferdinand  Lassalle  an  Carl  Rodbertus- Jagetzo7L<,  Berlin,  1878, 
throw  light  on  the  relations  existing  between  the  two  socialistic  leaders. 

Dr.  Theophil  Kozak,  in  a  book  entitled :  Rodbertus-  Jagetzow' s  socialokon- 
omiscJie  Ansichten,  Jena,  1882,  has  given  a  systematic  statement  of  his  entire 
theory,  mainly  in  the  language  of  Rodbertus  himself.  It  is  thoroughly  trustworthy, 
and  a  most  valuable  help  to  the  understanding  of  the  author. 


562 


POLITICAL  SCIENCE  QUARTERLY. 


[Vol.  I. 


but  took  no  active  part  in  the  movement.  Even  the  socialistic 
agitation  of  Lassalle  did  not  bring  him  to  the  front.  Yet  after 
i860  he. was  known  to  all  the  socialistic  leaders,  and  was  often 
called  upon  to  address  their  meetings  or  send  them  letters  of 
advice.  He  never  acceded  to  the  former  request,  though  he 
sometimes  did  to  the  latter.  He  shunned  the  work  of  an  agi- 
tator. He  was  too  much  of  a  conservative  to  act  otherwise 
than  in  full  agreement  with  the  powers  that  be.1  Thus  Rod- 
bertus  lived  almost  unknown  to  the  general  public  till  his  death 
in  1875.  His  fame  is  chiefly  posthumous,  and  is  due  in  a 
degree  to  the  labors  of  his  disciples  and  admirers.  His  life  was 
one  of  thought  rather  than  of  action.  About  the  theories  which 
he  elaborated  centres  the  chief  interest  of  his  career. 

Roclbertus  formulated  his  views  on  politics  and  economics 
early  in  life  and  adhered  to  them  with  little  change  throughout. 
His  best  years  were  passed  while  the  Hegelian  school  of 
thought  was  dominant  in  Germany.  Though  he  did  not 
expressly  ally  himself  to  any  branch  of  it,  as  Marx  did,  yet  he 
is  full  of  the  idea  of  historic  evolution.  His  doctrine,  as  well  as 
Hegel's,  was  an  outgrowth  of  the  prevalent  tendency  toward 
historic  research  which  had  its  rise  at  Gottingen  in  the  latter 
part  of  the  eighteenth  century.  Rodbertus  had  nothing  in 
common  with  the  pessimistic  and  fatalistic  views  of  the  young 
Hegelians.  He  was  always  a  firm  believer  in  human  progress, 
as  the  result  of  conscious  activity,  and  was  a  firm  theist. 

Extreme  laissez  faire  notions  never  found  acceptance  in 
Germany.  The  theoretical  views  of  Adam  Smith  always  met 
with  abundant  criticism  there.  This  is  to  be  explained  by  the 
fact  that  the  German  state  is  too  prominent  in  industrial  enter- 
prises, as  well  as  in  all  other  spheres  of  action,  to  be  ignored  in 
economic  theory.  Moreover,  historical  study  opened  the  way 
for  criticism  of  the  existing  social  order  in  the  light  of  experi- 
ence.   The  historical  study  of  institutions,  inclusive  of  the  state 

1  During  the  troubles  of  1848  his  place  was  in  the  party  of  the  centre  or  of  "all 
the  talents,"  where  he  urged  the  introduction  of  a  popular  representative  element 
into  the  constitution,  without  making  any  violent  break  with  the  history  and  tradi- 
tions of  the  nation. 


No.  4-] 


SCIENTIFIC  SOCIALISM. 


5^3 


which  is  above  and  around  them  all,  was  favorable  to  the  social 
view  of  political  economy.  It  promoted  the  habit  of  looking  at 
economic  phenomena  from  the  standpoint  of  the  community 
and  of  social  development  in  general.  Hence,  as  soon  as  the 
modern  industrial  system,  with  its  crises  and  other  drawbacks, 
was  developed  in  Germany,  the  way  was  prepared  for  intelligent 
criticism.  Use  was^  made  of  the  works  of  Sismondi,  and  the 
earlier  French  socialists,  but  independent  lines  of  thought  were 
developed. 

Rodbertus  became  impressed  very  early  with  the  advantage 
which  might  come  to  the  political  sciences  from  following  out 
the  analogies  which  exist  between  the  development  of  nature 
and  of  society.  His  philosophy  professes  to  cover  all  of  life, 
and  aims  at  the  most  comprehensive  view.  To  him  life  in  soci- 
ety is  the  result  of  the  inter-action  of  a  trinity  of  forces  —  spirit, 
will,  and  matter;  or  the  intellectual,  manifesting  itself  in  sci- 
ence and  language ;  the  moral,  appearing  in  morality  and  law ; 
and  the  material,  or  the  sphere  with  which  economics  deal. 
The  conditions  in  the  lowest  stages  of  social  development  are 
analogous  to  those  of  inorganic  nature,  or  to  the  lowest  forms  of 
organic  existence.  With  the  advent  of  agriculture,  based  on 
the  institution  of  slavery,  society  becomes  organized,  and  states 
appear.  When  once  that  point  is  reached,  all  impulses  to  prog- 
ress spring  from  society,  and  result  in  its  movement  as  a  whole. 
This  idea  Rodbertus  keeps  ever  in  mind.  He  constantly  empha- 
sizes the  fact  that  the  social  standpoint  is  the  one  from  which 
the  phenomena  of  organic  human  life  should  be  viewed.  On 
that  hinges  his  criticism  of  economic  theories  and  public 
policy.  But,  as  we  shall  see,  he  holds  that  the  periods  of  tran- 
sition from  one  form  of  organization  to  another  are  those  in 
which  the  largest  amount  of  individual  liberty  prevails. 

All  great  historic  changes  are  economic  in  their  origin. 
Human  labor  is  the  one  universal  economic  factor.  There- 
fore the  great  periods  of  history  will  be  distinguished  from 
one  another  chiefly  by  the  forms  in  which  labor  is  organized. 
In  pursuance  of  this  thought  Rodbertus  —  passing  over  primi- 
tive society,  where  the  clan  constitution  prevailed,  where  all 


5^4 


POLITICAL  SCIENCE  QUARTERLY. 


[Vol.  I. 


property  was  communal  and  only  simple  economic  conceptions 
apply  —  divides  the  history  of  mankind  into  two  periods  : 

(1)  The  ancient  Heathen  State,  which,  after  passing  through 
the  forms  of  theocracy  and  satrapy,  culminated  in  the  polis  ; 

(2)  The  German-Christian  State.  This  has  traversed  the 
feudal  and  bureaucratic  stages,  and  is  now  existing  under  the 
representative  form. 

The  radical  distinction  between  the  two  is,  that  in  the  former 
the  individual  had  no  rights  as  against  the  state,  and  all  labor 
was  slave  labor;  in  the  latter,  human  rights  were  recognized 
and  human  slavery  disappears. 

Rodbertus'  historic  studies  were  devoted  chiefly  to  Rome, 
and  therefore  its  economic  development  occupies  a  larger  share 
of  his  attention  than  that  of  any  other  period  of  history  except 
our  own.  He  views  it  as  the  culmination  of  the  polis,  and  as 
illustrating  all  which  that  form  of  development  has  to  offer. 
The  oikos,  or  primitive  family,  formed  the  germ  of  the  ancient 
city-state  among  the  Greeks  and  Romans.  Here  the  economic 
arrangements  were  simple,  and  such  as  would  be  found  in  a 
community  where  there  was  no  division  of  labor,  no  distinction 
between  manufacturing  and  agriculture,  but  little  transportation, 
few  exchanges,  limited  use  of  money,  and  where  there  could  be 
no  contest  between  the  laborer  and  the  capitalist,  because  the 
former  was  the  property  of  the  latter.  There  was  but  one  form 
of  tax,  a  progressive  income  tax  in  Athens,  and  a  general  prop- 
erty tax  for  citizens  in  Rome.  The  expenses  of  the  state  were 
few.  There  was  but  little  distinction  between  it  and  society. 
The  same  families  were  leaders  of  both.  Solidarity  was  the 
principle  of  organization  throughout. 

The  growth  of  individualism  in  Rome  began  with  the  legis- 
lation of  Servius  Tullius,  and  ended  with  the  full  realization  of 
the  policy  of  the  Empire.  It  was  the  work  largely  of  the  capi- 
talist party  of  which  Caesar  was  the  leader  and  representative. 
The  strength  of  the  family  bond  was  weakened.  Industry 
developed,  new  forms  of  production  began  to  be  carried  on  by 
corporations  independent  of  the  oikos.  The  system  of  taxation 
was  enlarged  by  the  early  emperors  to  cover  the  newly  devel- 


No.  4-] 


SCIENTIFIC  SOCIALISM. 


565 


oped  enterprises.  A  special  capitation  tax,  for  instance,  was 
levied  by  Alexander  Severus  on  slaves,  because  their  labor  as 
artisans  had  become  so  profitable  to  their  masters.  When  Cara- 
calla  in  213  admitted  all  the  provincials  to  citizenship,  uniformity 
between  the  Italian  and  the  provincial  system  of  taxation  was 
approximately  established.  Systematic  plundering  of  the  prov- 
inces ceased.  Means  were  taken  to  facilitate  transfers  of  land. 
For  a  long  time  previous  to  this,  freedom  of  traffic  had  existed 
between  all  parts  of  the  empire.  Thus  free  competition  (Fret- 
liandel)  was  established  for  the  first  time  in  history  throughout 
the  civilized  world. 

By  the  system  of  free  competition,  Rodbertus  means  not  the 
absence  of  customs  duties  levied  on  the  boundaries  of  a  country, 
nor  unhindered  communication  between  different  parts  of  the 
same  country  for  industrial  purposes,  but  absence  of  economic 
organization,  i.e.,  of  legal  combinations  of  persons  engaged  in 
similar  pursuits.  It  is  individualism,  the  negation  of  all  forms 
in  the  domains  of  science,  law,  and  labor.  It  means  the  disin- 
tegration of  society.  When  one  form  of  social  organization  has 
lived  its  time,  a  process  of  dissolution  begins.  Individuals 
struggle  against  the  old  in  the  domains  of  science  (free  thought), 
of  law  (political  freedom),  and  of  economy  (freedom  of  competi- 
tion). By  these  assaults  the  old  forms  are  broken  down.  All 
that  remains  is  a  certain  store  of  knowledge,  the  elements  of 
faith,  the  principles  of  morality,  —  especially  those  which  in- 
volve protection  for  person  and  property,  —  and  a  definite  divis- 
ion of  property.  To  every  person  is  given  the  free  use  of  his 
powers  for  production  up  to  the  limits  of  the  criminal  law.  It 
is  then  thought  that  social  laws  operate  like  natural  laws,  and 
will  of  themselves  work  out  the  common  weal.  In  its  extreme 
form  this  involves  the  negation  of  the  state.  "Anarchy  is 
panarchy"  becomes  the  motto  of  the  system.  Persons  who 
live  in  periods  when  the  theory  of  free  competition  is  carried 
into  practice  think  they  have  reached  an  advanced  stage  of 
progress.  They  are  really  living  in  a  time  of  transition,  when 
the  old  is  being  torn  away  preparatory  to  a  higher  form  of  com- 
bination.   If  the  tendency  to  individualism  is  allowed  to  operate 


566 


POLITICAL  SCIENCE  QUARTERLY. 


[Vol.  I. 


without  restraint,  it  will  prove  unfavorable  to  freedom,  because 
it  will  destroy  the  unity  of  the  state.  Ultimately,  the  state 
must  interfere  in  the  interest  of  public  welfare,  check  the  strug- 
gle for  existence,  and  establish  new  social  forms.  Community 
feeling  is  the  positive,  constructive,  life-giving  principle  in 
society.  Individualism  can  stimulate  for  a  time,  but  its  effect 
must  be  temporary. 

The  period  of  freedom  of  competition  in  the  Roman  Empire 
continued  fully  developed  from  Caesar  to  Diocletian.  Its  oper- 
ation was  on  the  one  hand  intensified  by  slavery,  but  on  the 
other  moderated  by  colonization.  It  produced  great  social  in- 
equality. Still,  economic  institutions  continued  to  bear  to  a 
certain  extent  the  stamp  of  antiquity.  Barter  always  remained 
a  prevalent  form  of  exchange.  The  book-keeping  of  the 
Romans,  both  private  and  national,  shows  that  even  in  the 
later  Empire  money  was  by  no  means  universally  employed. 
Also,  the  old  theory  of  the  unlimited  power  of  the  state  was 
still  held.  Hence,  the  principles  of  solidarity  in  taxation,  arbi- 
trary assessments,  payment  in  kind  or  by  personal  services  ren- 
dered to  the  state,  were  employed  with  crushing  effect  by  the 
later  emperors.  The  needs  of  a  vast  military  despotism  were 
supplied  by  a  system  of  taxation  which  had  originated  in  the 
city-state,  where  the  expenditures  were  few  and  civil  power 
unlimited.  It  was  in  part  the  combination  of  the  old  and  the 
new  in  the  conditions  of  the  Empire  which  made  the  fiscal 
policy  of  Diocletian  and  his  successors  so  oppressive. 

Diocletian  brought  the  period  of  Roman  laissez  faire  to  an 
end.  For  fiscal  purposes  he  sought  to  introduce  the  hereditary 
principle  into  all  corporations,  to  freeze  society  into  the  forms 
which  it  then  held.  Moreover,  with  Constantine  began  a  series 
of  laws  by  which  the  coloni,  who,  since  the  later  Republic,  had 
been  somewhat  loosely  attached  to  the  soil,  were  now  firmly 
bound  to  it  (adscriptitii).  This  process  was  completed  by  the 
time  of  Justinian,  and  from  the  class  thus  formed  developed  the 
mediaeval  peasantry  (Bauemstand).  In  this  way  originated  one 
of  the  chief  differences  between  ancient  and  modern  society  — 
the  economic  distinction  between  city  and  country.  Agricul- 


No.  4.] 


SCIENTIFIC  SOCIALISM. 


567 


ture  and  manufacturing,  which  in  the  primitive  city  had  been 
carried  on  indiscriminately  by  all,  henceforth  became  the  pur- 
suits of  two  distinct  social  classes. 

Thus  the  way  was  prepared  for  the  downfall  of  the  Roman 
system  by  the  contradictions  which  were  developed  within  it. 
The  Germans  only  completed  a  work  which  was  far  advanced 
before  they  appeared  west  of  the  Rhine  or  south  of  the 
Danube.  The  Roman  nationality,  as  well  as  the  ancient  eco- 
nomic institutions,  disappeared  in  the  transition  to  the  German- 
Christian  State.1 

From  the  abandonment  of  the  slave  system,  and  the  rise 
of  the  distinction  between  city  and  country,  follow  all  the  eco- 
nomic characteristics  of  modern  as  distinguished  from  ancient 
society.  The  power  of  the  state  is  now  limited  by  the  rights 
of  the  individual.  A  conflict  between  labor  and  capital  becomes 
possible.  It  was  impossible  in  antiquity,  because  the  laborer 
was  the  property  of  the  capitalist.  Lastly,  the  separation  of  em- 
ployments, beginning  with  the  appearance  of  agriculture  and 
manufactures  as  independent  pursuits,  and  the  organization  of 
labor  which  has  grown  up  with  this  separation,  divides  society 
into  classes  unknown  to  the  ancients. 

We  are  living  in  the  third  stage  of  the  development  of  the 
German-Christian  State,  viz.,  the  representative.  The  bloom  of 
the  representative  state  coincides  with  the  existence  of  the 
second  period  of  free  competition  in  the  world's  history.  It  was 
ushered  in  by  the  industrial  growth  of  the  last  quarter  of  the 
eighteenth  century.  This  movement  was  accompanied  by 
sweeping  legislation,  based  on  the  principle  of  "natural  rights," 
which  has  established  in  the  western  nations  freedom  of  labor 
and  domestic  traffic,  and  the  equality  of  all  before  the  law.  The 
legislators  who  have  carried  this  out  stand  to  the  present  social 
system  in  a  relation  similar  to  that  borne  by  Servius  Tullius 
and  Caesar  to  the  period  of  Roman  laissez  faire.  The  old  re- 
strictions were  justly  condemned  and  abandoned  because  they 
were  proven  to  be  injurious.    The  revolution  proceeded  from 

1  Robertus  did  not  live  to  complete  his  account  of  the  transition  period  after 
Diocletian.    He  announced  another  article  on  that,  but  died  before  it  was  written. 


568 


POLITICAL  SCIENCE  QUARTERLY. 


[Vol.  I. 


the  real  needs  of  the  time,  but  it  resulted  in  social  disorganiza- 
tion. The  development  of  the  existing  social  order  is  no  further 
advanced  now  than  that  of  antiquity  was  in  the  time  of  Caesar. 
It  has  by  no  means  borne  its  full  fruit.  Neither  is  it  the  last 
and  highest  possible  form  of  social  development.  It  is  tran- 
sitional, like  its  predecessor.  Through  it  the  way  is  being  pre- 
pared for  a  higher  form  of  organization  than  that  of  antiquity  or 
of  the  middle  ages. 

Rodbertus  bases  his  discussion  of  the  phenomena  of  our  pres- 
ent social  order  on  the  doctrines  of  Smith  and  Ricardo.  Ac- 
cording to  the  views  indicated  above,  he  regards  society  as  com- 
posed of  laborers  and  capitalists,  who  are  rivals  in  the  struggle 
for  existence.  The  one  class  possesses  the  instruments  of  pro- 
duction, and  the  other  is  unable  to  obtain  a  chance  to  labor 
without  the  consent  of  its  opponents.  The  remuneration  of  the 
laborer  is  fixed  by  contract.  In  antiquity  the  master  was  bound 
to  support  his  slave,  if  he  was  to  have  the  results  of  his  labor. 
Now  the  laborer  has  what  he  can  get. 

In  his  analysis  of  production  and  distribution  under  the  sys- 
tem of  division  of  labor,  Rodbertus  differs  from  the  English 
economists  only  in  viewing  the  subject  from  the  social  stand- 
point. He  conceives  of  society  as  divided  into  several  classes, — 
the  raw-producers,  the  half-manufacturers,  the  manufacturers, 
the  transporters.  Commodities  are  ever  passing  in  a  continuous 
stream  through  the  hands  of  these  producers.  If  the  current 
were  stopped  at  any  time,  commodities  would  be  found  at  all 
points  along  the  line,  from  the  raw-producers  to  the  consumers. 
Also,  the  general  classes  of  producers  are  subdivided  into 
branches,  as  the  various  forms  of  raw-production  and  manufac- 
turing, and  these  again  are  carried  on  as  individual  enterprises. 
The  division  of  labor,  by  separating  producers  into  classes, 
causes  the  development  of  the  market,  and  makes  exchange  uni- 
versal. With  exchange,  money  comes  into  general  use.  As 
society  advances,  money  will  lose  its  character  as  a  commodity, 
and  be  used  only  for  settling  balances.  Then  we  shall  have 
reached  the  period  of  credit  economy. 

But  little  is  to  be  gained  by  looking  only  at  the  individualistic 


No.  4.] 


SCIENTIFIC  SOCIALISM. 


569 


side  of  division  of  labor.  Its  essence  is  community  of  labor, 
whether  we  contemplate  the  work  in  a  factory,  or  enterprises 
which  encircle  the  globe.  A  truly  national  and  world-economy 
arises  from  it.  It  is  the  material  bond  which,  with  law  and  lan- 
guage, unites  men  in  society.  Each  labors  for  all,  and  all  for 
each.  If  we  follow  a  commodity  through  all  the  stages  of  its 
course  from  the  raw-producer  to  the  consumer,  we  shall  see  that 
each  class  is  dependent  on  all  the  others  for  the  success  of  its 
work.  Each  class  depends  on  the  one  before  it  for  its  raw 
material.  By  neglecting  this  point  of  view,  the  earlier  econo- 
mists have  failed  to  see  that  the  national  product  is  a  unit,  in 
which  all  classes  of  producers  share.  By  the  same  cause  they 
have  been  led  to  adopt  the  erroneous  view  that  the  value  of  the 
product  depends  on  the  amount  of  the  shares  into  which  it  is 
divided ;  e.g.,  that  the  price  of  the  product  is  affected  by  the  rate 
of  wages  ;  that  high  wages  hinder  competition. 

Distribution  is  more  individualistic  in  its  character  than  pro- 
duction. All  who  have  contributed  in  any  way  to  the  work  of 
production  put  in  their  claims  and  receive  a  part  of  the  product. 
Public  law  decides  how  much  shall  go  to  society  and  the  em- 
ployees of  the  state.  The  amount  which  goes  to  individuals  is 
fixed  by  competition  in  the  form  of  rent,  wages,  and  profits. 
The  class  engaged  in  transportation  conveys  the  product  to  the 
individual  to  whom  it  belongs.  But  even  in  distribution  the 
communistic  element  predominates,  though  obscured  by  the 
present  legal  system.  Society  is^a  unit  ;  not  simply  an  aggre- 
gate of  individuals.  The  income  of  the  state  and  of  the  various 
associations  within  it  far  exceeds  that  of  any  individual. 

Here,  then,  we  have  a  picture  of  the  operation  of  supply  and 
demand  on  the  largest  scale.  In  primitive  society  it  was  easy 
to  adapt  the  one  of  these  to  the  other.  Each  producer  could 
easily  obtain  the  full  result  of  his  labor,  because  production  and 
consumption  touched  each  other.  But  in  the  present  complex 
society  the  adaptation  of  supply  to  demand  becomes  a  service 
to  the  public  of  the  most  important  and  delicate  character,  re- 
quiring special  knowledge  and  ability.  The  work  is  actually 
done  by  the  capitalists,  the  managers  of  production,  who,  though 


570  POLITICAL  SCIENCE  QUARTERLY.  [Vol.  I. 


acting  in  a  private  capacity,  are  yet  performing  the  service  of 
public  functionaries. 

In  the  course  of  the  preceding  discussion  we  have  had  hints 
of  the  line  of  thought  which  Rodbertus  would  naturally  pursue 
in  his  criticism  of  the  existing  social  order.  His  historical 
philosophy  is  full  of  the  idea  that  social  systems  are  only  rela- 
tively excellent ;  that  is,  excellent  to  the  degree  in  which  they 
satisfy  the  needs  of  the  times.  Every  system  hitherto  has  con- 
tained a  latent  contradiction.  This  has  slowly  developed  till 
the  conditions  of  life  have  become  intolerable.  Then  has  fol- 
lowed a  revolution,  either  sudden  and  by  force,  or  gradual  and 
peaceful.  Rome  fell  because  of  the  contradiction  between  the 
old  principle  of  the  omnipotence  of  the  state,  and  the  new  eco- 
nomic conditions  of  the  Empire.  A  contradiction  exists  in  our 
society,  arising  from  the  relations  between  labor  and  capital, 
which  will  inevitably,  in  the  one  way  or  the  other,  cause  the 
overthrow  of  existing  property  institutions.  The  argument  by 
which  Rodbertus  seeks  to  establish  this  proposition  runs  as 
follows : 

He  starts  from  the  Ricardian  doctrine  that  labor  is  the  only 
productive  agent.  Therefore,  he  argues,  it  must  be  the  only 
source  of  value.  He  gives  a  broad  definition  of  labor,  viz.>  the 
expenditure  of  human  energy.  He  therefore  includes  under  the 
term  intellectual  as  well  as  physical  labor.  He  acknowledges 
that  nature  is  the  source  from  which  forces  and  materials  are 
derived  ;  but  its  activity  is  not  economic.  Economy  begins  and 
ends  with  man  in  society ;  either  in  the  family  or  in  some  larger 
association.  It  is  only  through  human  labor  bestowed  upon 
them  that  natural  products  become  commodities.  Before  that, 
they  form  the  subject-matter  of  the  natural,  but  not  of  the 
social  sciences.  In  order  to  attain  clear  definition  and  classifi- 
cation, it  is  necessary  to  exclude  from  economics  all  considera- 
tion of  nature  apart  from  human  labor.  Economic  science  takes 
nature's  work  for  granted,  but  from  that  work  it  is  impossible 
to  derive  any  rights  in  distribution.  Land  is  neither  capital, 
nor  a  productive  factor.  It  is  only  through  a  misdirected  social 
development  that  it  has  come  to  be  so  considered.  Physical 


No.  4.] 


SCIENTIFIC  SOCIALISM. 


571 


labor  is  "immediately"  productive,  and  so  should  receive  a 
share  in  " direct  distribution."  Intellectual  labor  is  "  mediately  " 
productive,  and  is  entitled  to  share  in  "  derivative  distribution." 
The  classification  of  society  into  laborers  and  capitalists,  mean- 
ing by  the  former  those  whose  labor  is  mostly  physical  and 
comparatively  unskilled,  employed  in  the  mass  and  paid  accord- 
ing to  the  time  spent,  is  perfectly  justifiable. 

This  doctrine  of  labor  is,  of  course,  given  its  due  weight  in 
Rodbertus'  theory  of  capital.  But  another  point  of  prime 
importance  here  is  his  distinction  between  essential  capital 
(Kapital  an  sick)  and  historic  capital.  This  involves  also  his 
theory  of  income.  When  we  look  at  economic  phenomena  from 
the  standpoint  of  the  community,  we  find  that  the  products  of 
labor  fall  into  two  classes,  essential  capital  and  income.  The 
former  consists  of  those  products  which  are  devoted  to  the  pur- 
poses of  immediate  production ;  the  latter  is  composed  of  those 
which  are  accumulated  in  order  that  they  may  be  consumed. 
They  are  the  means  of  satisfaction  ;  e.g.,  objects  of  luxury, 
furniture,  and  the  like.  Capital,  on  the  other  hand,  comprises 
tools  and  materials  actually  used  in  productive  enterprises. 
Capital  is  not  the  result  of  saving ;  it  is  not  an  accumulation 
(Vorrath).  Its  nature  is  that  it  should  be  consumed  almost  as 
fast  as  it  is  produced.  It  is  produced  that  it  may  disappear  as 
soon  as  possible  in  new  products.  J.  S.  Mill's  statement  about 
the  rapid  disappearance  of  capital  is  eminently  true.  Saving  or 
accumulation  would  necessarily  jlefeat  the  end  of  its  existence. 
How  can  materials  and  tools  be  saved  ?  Nobody  thinks  of 
accumulating  such,  or  of  producing  them  for  the  purpose  of 
accumulation.  Essential  capital,  therefore,  cannot  be  the  result 
of  saving,  neither  can  that  theory  of  its  origin  furnish  the 
source  of  any  claim  for  the  capitalist  in  distribution.  Capital  is 
solely  the  product  of  labor,  mediate  or  immediate.  The  labor 
bestowed  upon  the  manufacture  of  a  machine  is,  so  far  as  the 
products  of  that  machine  are  concerned,  mediate  labor.  The 
labor  of  operating  the  machine  itself  in  the  manufacture  of  final 
products  is  immediate  labor.  If  the  machine  cost  n  labor,  and 
produces  x  goods  before  it  is  worn  out,  and  if  we  designate  the 


572 


POLITICAL  SCIENCE  QUARTERLY. 


[Vol.  I. 


immediate  labor  bestowed  by  m,  then  the  value  of  each  com- 
modity produced  will  be  represented  by  the  formula  m  -J-  -. 

Essential  capital,  then,  is  not  a  productive  agent.  It  is  sim- 
ply intensified  labor.  All  implements  are  vorgcthanc  Arbeit  — 
labor  already  performed,  accumulated  labor.  When  a  person 
uses  an  implement  in  a  productive  operation,  he  is  calling  into 
activity  the  labor  of  the  present  and  of  the  past.  The  pre- 
historic man  first  increased  the  efficiency  of  his  labor.  He  then 
had  time  left,  after  satisfying  his  wants,  which  he  devoted  to 
the  making  of  his  first  tool.  Production  in  all  its  stages  is  only 
a  repetition  of  this  process.  When  a  new  and  better  machine 
is  put  in  the  place  of  an  old  one,  there  is  no  increase  of  capital. 
On  the  other  hand,  there  is  often  a  positive  diminution  of  the 
same,  and  that  according  to  the  prevailing  notion  of  capital. 

Moreover,  the  way  in  which  products  are  distributed  makes 
no  difference  with  the  fact  that  they  have  sprung  entirely  from 
labor.  If  we  follow  the  series  of  productive  operations  back  to 
their  very  beginning,  we  find  that  they  resolve  themselves  into 
labor,  and  their  products  into  the  results  of  labor.  Capital  is 
ever  rising  to  the  surface  of  this  vast  stream  of  production  only 
to  sink  again  and  disappear. 

Finally,  essential  capital  is  not  the  source  of  income.  Labor 
is  the  source  of  both.  Capital  may  become  income  by  being 
diverted  from  productive  purposes  to  those  of  consumption.  In 
the  isolated  and  primitive  condition  of  society,  capital  and 
income  stand  to  each  other  in  the  relation  of  successive  steps  in 
economic  progress,  the  one  constantly  passing  into  the  other. 
But  the  connection  of  cause  and  effect  does  not  exist  between 
the  two.  Income  may  be  great  or  small  in  proportion  to  capi- 
tal, but  not  because  it  is  created  by  capital.  The  income  and 
capital  of  a  nation  together  form  the  collective  product  of  its 
labor,  and  this  product  is  distributed  among  the  different  classes 
of  producers. 

Historic  capital  is  a  product  of  the  system  of  private  property 
in  land  and  the  other  means  of  production.  It  is  private  cap- 
ital, a  result  of  social  development,  and  therefore  has  no  claim 
to  universality  or  permanency.    Private  property  in  land  arose 


No.  4.] 


SCIENTIFIC  SOCIALISM. 


573 


in  consequence  of  the  appropriation  by  individuals  of  the  primi- 
tive communal  domain.  All  the  implements  and  materials  of 
production  have  been  appropriated  by  a  special  class  —  the  cap- 
italists. They  employ  these  in  productive  enterprises  of  which 
they  have  complete  control.  Capitalists  decide  what  enter- 
prises shall  be  undertaken  and  upon  what  scale  they  shall  be 
carried  on.  They-  advance  the  means  for  prosecuting  the  busi- 
ness and  are  the  owners  of  the  entire  product.  Their  object  in 
this  is  private  gain.  They  will  undertake  nothing  unless  there 
promises  to  be  a  good  demand,  and  that  implies  a  previous 
accumulation  and  distribution  of  property.  The  laborers,  who 
are  the  real  producers,  form  a  distinct  class  over  against  the 
capitalists.  They  own  none  of  the  implements  and  materials 
which  they  have  produced.  They  use  those  which  the  capital- 
ist, their  employer,  furnishes ;  and  during  the  actual  periods  of 
production  they  live  upon  the  commodities  which  he  advances. 
Hence  it  seems  as  if  the  capitalist  contributed  an  important 
productive  agent,  and  that  the  profit  which  he  receives  is  a 
return  for  its  use.  But  this  is  to  mistake  the  possession  of  capi- 
tal for  capital  itself.  The  radical  error  in  the  theories  of  the 
earlier  economists  is  that  on  this  point  they  have  confounded 
the  appearance  with  the  reality.  The  capitalist  class  is  enabled 
to  perform  its  function,  not  because  it  controls  a  separate  factor 
of  production,  but  because  it  has  appropriated  the  lion's  share 
of  the  products  of  labor.  This  result  has  been  produced  by 
laws  favoring  capital,  and  by J;he  unequal  conditions  under 
which,  from  the  first,  labor  has  competed. 

It  follows  from  the  doctrine  already  advanced  that  wages  do  not 
form  a  part  of  capital,  but,  with  rent  and  profits,  belong  to  national 
income.  Whether  they  are  paid  after  or  before  the  sale  of  the 
product,  the  commodities  out  of  which  the  wages  come  were 
produced  before  the  time  of  making  the  payment.  The  wages 
paid  at  the  close  of  each  period  of  production,  the  day  or  the 
week,  are  in  return  for  the  goods  produced  during  that  period. 

Rodbertus  does  not  seek  to  deny  or  obscure  the  fact  that  the 
service  performed  for  society  by  the  capitalist  class  is  very 
great.    The  skill  and  knowledge  shown  by  them  in  starting  and 


574 


POLITICAL  SCIENCE  QUARTERLY. 


[Vol.  I. 


managing  industries  he  recognizes  as  labor  of  a  very  high 
quality.  As  such  it  is  entitled  to  its  just  reward.  It  is  labor 
which  society  cannot  dispense  with.  The  laborers  themselves 
cannot  perform  it.  The  function  of  the  manager  must  be 
retained,  but  his  reward  should  consist  only  of  wages  of  super- 
intendence. Labor,  in  the  broadest  sense  of  the  term,  is  the 
sole  productive  agent,  and  therefore  is  entitled  to  the  whole 
product.  But  now  the  capitalist  class  receives  it  all,  not 
because  of  the  labor  which  they  have  performed,  but  because 
they  are  the  possessors.  All  income  in  excess  of  the  just  return 
for  labor,  whether  derived  from  land  or  capital,  Rodbertus  calls 
rent.  This  is  what  a  man  obtains  without  effort  on  his  own 
part.  It  is  the  result  of  expropriation,  robbery.  He  divides 
it  into  ground-rent  and  capital-rent,  and  the  latter  into  interest 
and  undertaker's  profit. 

From  the  point  now  reached  it  is  easy  to  understand  Rodber- 
tus' theory  of  pauperism  and  crises.  If  rent,  profits,  and  wages 
are  paid  from  the  total  national  income,  it  follows  that  a  rise  of 
the  two  former,  or  of  either  one  of  them,  without  a  corre- 
sponding decline  of  the  other,  will  be  followed  by  a  fall  of 
wages.  Rodbertus  holds,  with  Ricardo,  that  under  the  system 
of  free  competition  wages  tend  toward  the  minimum  point,  viz., 
that  amount  which  will  supply  the  barest  necessities  of  life. 
The  forces  which  operate  against  this  tendency  are  increase  in 
the  efficiency  of  labor,  and  checks  to  the  growth  of  population. 
National  productivity  has  been  greatly  increased,  but  most  of 
its  results  have  passed  into  the  hands  of  the  capitalists.  That 
this  is  a  necessary  result  appears  when  we  examine  the  origin 
and  present  condition  of  the  laborers  as  a  class.  Their  ances- 
tors were  slaves  in  antiquity  and  serfs  during  the  middle 
ages.  When  they  emerged  into  freedom,  ignorant  and  desti- 
tute, they  found  themselves  in  competition  with  an  active, 
intelligent  class  furnished  with  capital.  It  was  not  a  struggle 
between  labor  and  the  owners  of  land,  alone  and  unas- 
sisted ;  but  labor  was  forced  into  competition  with  a  class 
possessing  in  addition  all  the  fruits  of  a  thousand  years  of 
civilization,  developed  during  the  ages  of  slavery  and  servitude. 


No.  4.] 


SCIENTIFIC  SOCIALISM. 


575 


Hence  the  start  was  unfair,  and  its  effect  has  continued  till  the 
present.  As  the  entire  product  of  the  slave's  labor  belonged  to 
his  master,  so  it  continued  to  belong  to  his  employer  after  the 
slave  became  a  wage-worker.  Instead  of  labor  and  property  co- 
operating in  the  production  of  wealth,  a  form  of  contract  was 
entered  into.  But  contracts  between  members  of  two  classes 
so  situated  cannot  be  fair.  The  laborer  has  only  his  one  com- 
modity, labor,  which  he  must  sell  at  once,  or  lose  entirely.  It 
is  like  "selling  the  harvest  upon  the  stalk."  Also,  the  general 
use  of  money  in  exchange  is  unfavorable  to  the  laborer.  It 
separates  him  further  than  ever  from  his  product.  Its  pur- 
chasing power  may  differ  from  the  value  of  the  laborer's  share 
of  his  product,  nominal  from  real  wages.  Money  is  used  when 
the  employer  pays  his  men,  and  again  when  it  is  expended 
in  the  purchase  of  the  real  wages.  Whenever  exchange  is 
resorted  to,  the  laborer  comes  under  the  operation  of  the  so- 
called  natural  law  of  supply  and  demand.  They  always  work 
to  his  disadvantage,  because  he  is  not  in  a  condition  to  compete 
on  an  equality  with  the  capitalist.  Furthermore,  the  vigorous 
competition  between  capitalists  makes  cheapness  a  necessity. 
The  reduction  in  cost  which  this  necessitates  is  usually  made 
at  the  expense  of  labor,  because  it  is  the  weaker  party.  To  the 
employer  wages  seem  to  be  a  part  of  the  cost  of  production, 
and  hence  they  are  forced  down. 

The  above  considerations  explain  the  fact  that  wages  tend 
toward  the  starvation  point.  Competition  can  be  free  only 
between  classes  of  equal  economic  strength.  Between  classes 
of  unequal  strength  it  is  slavery  under  the  name  of  freedom. 
The  spirit  of  the  system  is  seen  in  the  prevailing  doctrine  that 
labor,  meaning  the  laborer,  is  a  commodity,  a  chattel,  which 
forms  a  part  of  the  cost  of  production,  and  is  subject  in  all 
respects  to  the  operation  of  supply  and  demand.  Statistics 
confirm  these  statements,  for  they  show  that  throughout  Europe 
the  wages  of  common  laborers  have  never  risen,  except  for  short 
intervals,  above  the  point  of  absolute  need.  The  laborers  are 
practically  in  the  condition  of  serfs.  On  the  other  hand,  profits 
and  rent  have  risen  greatly,  the  former  more  than  the  latter, 


576 


POLITICAL  SCIENCE  QUARTERLY. 


[Vol.  I. 


because  the  productiveness  of  manufacturing  and  transporta- 
tion has  increased  faster  than  that  of  agriculture.  Improve- 
ments in  production  under  the  present  system  are  therefore  a 
curse  rather  than  a  blessing.  The  defenders  of  free  competi- 
tion assert  that  everything  which  adds  to  national  wealth  is  a 
good,  and  everything  which  takes  from  it  is  an  evil.  This  is 
not  necessarily  so.  Every  addition  made  to  national  wealth 
may  help  the  growth  of  inequality.  While  the  laborers  at  one 
extreme  of  society  sink  into  pauperism,  the  plutocrats  at  the 
other  extreme  pass  from  the  struggle  to  increase  productive- 
ness, to  the  struggle  for  gain,  pure  and  simple.  From  that 
they  pass  to  rivalry  in  the  pursuit  of  enjoyment.  From  this 
develops  luxury,  followed  by  moral  corruption,  which  is  the  last 
stage  in  the  process  of  social  decay. 

In  his  theory  of  pauperism  Rodbertus  discusses  the  move- 
ment of  wages  in  reference  to  the  minimum  point.  But  there 
is  another  point  of  comparison.  The  expressions,  wages  are 
"  rising"  or  "falling,"  are  "high"  or  "low,"  may  be  used  in 
another  sense.  This  is  with  reference  to  the  total  product  of 
labor.  Wages  may  be  absolutely  high,  that  is,  far  above  the  least 
amount  necessary  for  the  support  of  the  requisite  number  of 
laborers,  and  yet  form  a  small  part  of  the  total  national  product. 
They  will  then  be  relatively  low.  The  total  national  income 
may  increase  so  much  faster  than  wages,  that  the  rate  of  wages 
may  be  slowly  rising,  though  at  the  same  time  a  continually 
diminishing  share  of  the  national  product  goes  to  the  laboring 
classes.  This  is  actually  realized  under  the  system  of  private 
property  and  free  competition,  and  from  it  is  derived  the  only 
satisfactory  explanation  of  commercial  crises. 

Crises  appeared  with  the  advent  of  the  modern  industrial 
system,  and  have  kept  pace  with  its  development.  Instead  of 
disappearing,  they  are  becoming  more  frequent  and  severe. 
They  may  arise  from  the  failure  of  producers  properly  to  adapt 
supply  to  demand.  That  of  .itself  reveals  a  weak  point  in  the 
present  social  system.  The  fact  that  capitalists  attempt  noth- 
ing unless  they  think  profit  can  be  made  out  of  it,  and  act  upon 
the  most  imperfect  knowledge  of  the  conditions  of  the  market, 


No.  4.] 


SCIENTIFIC  SOCIALISM. 


577 


leads  to  reckless  and  blundering  ventures,  which  end  in  great 
and  constantly  recurring  losses.  But  this,  Rodbertus  says,  is 
by  no  means  the  source  of  modern  crises.  Their  symptoms  he 
describes  with  great  ability.  They  are  uniformly  preceded  by  a 
period  of  high  prices,  great  productiveness  of  labor  and  increase 
of  capital,  high  wages,  and  fall  in  the  rate  of  interest.  The 
banks  overflow  with  deposits ;  credit  is  so  easy  and  confidence 
is  so  great  that  multitudes  of  new  enterprises  are  started. 
Suddenly,  as  if  by  a  stroke  of  lightning,  the  situation  is  changed. 
A  stagnation  occurs  in  some  of  the  leading  branches  of  a  na- 
tion's industry,  which  extends  to  all  forms  of  business.  The 
prices  of  all  commodities  fall  rapidly.  Property  and  incomes 
shrink  in  value  till  all  find  it  difficult  to  meet  obligations,  while 
many  temporarily  suspend  payment  or  become  bankrupts.  Pro- 
duction is  greatly  curtailed.  Thousands  of  laborers  are  left 
without  work,  and  hence  without  food.  The  capitalist  and 
laborer  alike  suffer.  Sometimes  a  shock  to  credit  begins  the 
collapse ;  again,  a  poor  harvest,  or  some  important  loss  of  capi- 
tal. But  most  frequently  it  begins  with  a  fall  of  prices.  The 
channels  of  trade  become  obstructed ;  but  in  this  case,  unlike  a 
river  in  the  time  of  freshet,  there  is  no  overflow  and  enrichment 
of  the  surrounding  wastes.  The  current  of  production  stops 
and  remains  fixed  in  its  channel.  Abundance  and  want  exist 
side  by  side,  but  cannot  meet.  Only  after  this  condition  has 
lasted  for  an  indefinite  time,  does  production  begin  slowly  to 
revive,  and  better  prospects  appe>r  for  capital  and  labor. 

Crises  begin  at  the  centres  of  industry  and  trade,  where  capi- 
tal is  most  abundant  and  credit  most  developed.  Commercial 
prosperity  furnishes  the  conditions  under  which  they  thrive. 
In  the  most  advanced  nations  they  are  felt  most  severely. 
They  originated  in  England,  the  city  of  the  world ;  but  the  de- 
velopment of  railways,  of  steam  navigation,  and  of  stock  trans- 
actions, has  spread  their  effects  over  the  two  hemispheres. 
The  crises  since  1830  have  affected  all  the  western  nations, 
and  each  has  been  more  severe  than  its  predecessor.  The  in- 
terval between  the  first  and  third  crises  (18 18-1836)  was  eigh- 
teen years;  that  between  the  second  and  fourth  (1826- 1840) 


578  POLITICAL  SCIENCE  QUARTERLY.  [Vol.1. 

was  fourteen  years;  that  between  the  third  and  fifth  (1836- 
1847)  was  eleven  years. 

Since  the  growth  of  national  debts  and  the  issue  of  so  many 
securities  by  corporations,  stock  transactions  play  a  part  in 
crises  so  important  as  to  obscure  their  real  nature.  They  are 
not  money  crises,  but  trade  or  community  crises.  Merchants 
who  have  imposed  their  superficial  views  on  society  explain 
them  as  the  result  of  excessive  speculation.  But  the  real  cause 
is  to  be  found  in  the  explanation  of  the  first  symptom  ;  viz., 
the  fall  of  prices.  Rodbertus,  in  his  history  of  the  crisis  pre- 
vious to  1848,  strives  to  prove  this  point.  He  claims,  for  exam- 
ple, that  the  crisis  of  1837  in  England  could  not  have  been 
caused  by  the  revolution  in  Lisbon,  which  depreciated  Portu- 
guese bonds.  Large  amounts  of  Spanish  securities  were  held 
in  England,  but  in  1835  a  serious  revolution  occurred  there 
without  causing  a  panic  in  the  English  market.  If  a  collapse 
of  credit  caused  the  panic  in  the  former  case,  it  should  have 
produced  a  similar  result  in  the  latter.  The  fact,  however,  is 
that  the  year  1837  was  preceded  both  in  America  and  England 
by  a  period  of  most  rapid  increase  in  national  wealth.  The 
extent  to  which  railroad  building  was  carried  is  one  evidence 
of  this.  But  there  was  the  greatest  activity  in  every  branch  of 
agriculture  and  manufacturing.  The  introduction  of  machines 
vastly  increased  the  labor  power.  Credit,  which  aids  produc- 
tion by  removing  the  necessity  of  waiting  till  new  capital  is 
created  before  enterprises  can  be  started,  was  called  into  active 
service.  Banks  of  issue,  the  most  powerful  organs  of  credit, 
gave  their  impulse  to  industrial  progress.  Under  these  circum- 
stances great  enterprises  flourished,  and  it  was  these  which  pro- 
duced a  mass  of  commodities,  the  accumulation  of  which  clogged 
the  channels  of  trade.  The  crisis  which  followed,  though  intro- 
duced by  a  money  panic,  was  really  a  sudden  fall  of  prices  in 
all  the  industrial  centres  from  America  to  Constantinople. 
These  phenomena  are  repeated  in  all  crises.  The  all-important 
question  then  is,  Why  do  commodities  accumulate  in  this  way  ? 
Production  is  only  a  few  steps  ahead  of  consumption ;  and  if  the 
entire  wealth  of  any  country  were  distributed  equally  among  its 


No.  4.] 


SCIENTIFIC  SOCIALISM. 


579 


population,  each  individual  would  receive  only  a  small  amount. 
Why  are  not  commodities  taken  off  the  market  as  soon  as  they 
are  produced  ?  The  reason  is,  that  the  purchasing  power  of  the 
masses,  nine-tenths  of  the  population,  does  not  keep  pace  with 
the  productiveness  of  their  labor.  This  is  the  correct  form  of 
statement,  rather  than  the  one  used  by  Malthus  and  Sismondi, 
that  the  producing* power  of  the  laborers  exceeds  their  purchas- 
ing power.  If  each  individual  or  class  of  producers  received 
their  entire  product,  the  supply  they  bring  to  the  market  would 
equal  their  demand.  These  crises  would  be  impossible,  because 
purchasing  power  and  productiveness  would  balance.  It  mat- 
ters not  whether  the  share  of  the  laboring  classes  be  absolutely 
small  or  not ;  so  long  as  it  does  not  increase  as  fast  as  their 
ability  to  produce,  with  the  aid  of  all  the  machinery  which  is  in 
operation,  crises  must  be  regular  visitors  in  modern  society. 
No  class  is  responsible  for  their  occurrences.  Capital  suffers 
from  their  effect  as  much  as  labor.  The  fault  is  in  the  system ; 
it  is  organic.  Attempts  to  restrict  the  proper  development  of 
credit,  like  the  Peel  Bank  Act  of  1844,  will  not  cure  the  evil. 
We  need  all  the  aid  that  credit  can  furnish.  Production  should 
be  extended  in  its  scope  rather  than  restricted.  All  that  is 
needed  is  a  more  equal  distribution.  But  can  that  be  obtained 
under  the  system  of  free  competition  ?  Rodbertus  holds  that 
it  cannot.  Pauperism  and  crises  are  so  related  that  the  one 
cannot  be  removed  without  the  cure  of  the  other.  Pauperism 
makes  crises  possible,  and  crises  defeat  all  attempts  of  the 
laborers  to  escape  from  their  poverty.  Here  lies  the  fatal  con- 
tradiction which  is  to  cause  the  overthrow  of  modern  society. 
It  is  as  real  and  deep-seated  as  that  which  prepared  the  way  for 
the  triumph  of  the  barbarians  over  Rome.  Now,  however,  the 
barbarians  who  threaten  society  with  their  attacks  live  within, 
rather  than  outside  its  borders.  They  are  not  slaves,  excluded 
from  the  protection  of  the  law,  nor  serfs,  possessing  a  limited 
number  of  rights,  but  citizens,  endowed  with  full  political 
equality.  They  see  in  political  freedom  only  a  form,  without 
substantial  advantage.  So  direct  and  intense  is  the  conflict  of 
interests  between  capital  and  labor  that  Rodbertus  sees  only 


58o 


POLITICAL  SCIENCE  QUARTERLY.  [Vol.  I. 


revolution  ahead,  unless  the  state  interferes  to  secure  peaceful 
and  regular  developments. 

The  treatment  of  the  problem  of  land  and  rent  occupies  an 
important  place  in  Rodbertus'  works,  but  only  a  passing  refer- 
ence can  be  made  to  it  here.  He  subjected  Ricardo's  theory  of 
rent  to  a  searching  criticism,  holding  that  it  does  not  explain 
the  origin,  but  simply  deals  with  the  fact  of  rent.  He  brings 
out  the  points  which  have  been  made  familiar  to  English  readers 
by  Carey  and  Jones,  but  adds  others  of  greater  scientific  value. 
He  would  substitute  for  the  doctrine  the  idea  which  has  ap- 
peared already ;  viz.,  that  rent,  like  profits  and  interest,  is  the 
product  of  our  social  institutions.  It  is  one  of  the  forms  under 
which  the  laborer  is  robbed  of  the  product  of  his  effort.  "The 
theory  of  rent,"  he  says,  "  is  the  answer  to  the  question  why 
persons  who  perform  no  service  participate  in  the  original  dis- 
tribution of  goods."  Again  he  says  :  "The  taking  of  them  out 
as  a  special  share"  —  meaning  rent  and  profits  —  "is  private 
property  in  land  and  capital."  Rodbertus  seeks  to  explain  the 
recent  growth  of  indebtedness  upon  land  throughout  Germany, 
wholly  from  the  fact  that  it  has  been  treated  as  capital.  By  the 
legislation  of  the  present  century  it  has  been  brought  under  the 
influence  of  free  competition.  It  is  exchanged  as  if  it  were 
capital,  and  its  value  is  expressed  in  the  terms  of  capitalized 
rent.  Thereby  it  has  been  subjected  to  the  fluctuations  of  in- 
terest and  of  speculative  demand.  The  result,  in  brief,  has 
been  that  the  owners  of  it,  and  dealers  in  it,  have  become  in- 
volved more  and  more  deeply  in  debt.  But  land,  according  to 
Rodbertus,  is  not  capital  at  all.  It  is  simply  the  source  of  rent. 
That  alone  measures  its  value.  To  treat  land  legally  as  if  it 
were  capital  results  not  only  in  confusion,  but  in  the  loss  to  the 
landholding  class.  The  principles  underlying  real  credit  are 
quite  different  from  those  of  personal  credit.  Therefore  Rod- 
bertus urges  that  the  rent-principle  of  the  middle  ages  be 
brought  again  into  use,  and  sees  in  that,  together  with  the  es- 
tablishment of  a  system  of  country  banks,  a  specific  cure  for 
the  evils  under  which  German  agriculture  is  suffering. 

The  most  important  reforms  proposed  by  Rodbertus  are  those 


No.  4.] 


SCIENTIFIC  SOCIALISM. 


58l 


intended  to  remove  the  great  social  dilemma,  the  struggle  be- 
tween labor  and  capital.  Unless  this  and  the  evils  which  come 
from  it  are  cured,  society  will  go  to  pieces.  But  they  will  be 
cured,  he  says,  and  that  by  means  of  a  long  process  of  historical 
development,  continuing  at  least  five  hundred  years.  This 
process  will  not  go  on  of  itself.  It  must  be  a  self-conscious 
evolution,  guided-by  the  controlling  organ  of  society,  the  state. 
The  evils  of  the  present  system  will  probably  make  themselves 
felt  much  more  keenly  than  at  present.  But  the  sense  of  suffer- 
ing caused  by  them  will  force  society  into  a  course  of  develop- 
ment which  will  lead  ultimately  to  a  complete  transformation, 
a  new  social  order.  It  is  absolutely  necessary,  then,  to  discern 
aright  the  goal  toward  which  we  are  tending.  Then  only  can 
appropriate  measures  and  a  safe  course  of  policy  be  chosen. 
The  social  question  cannot  be  solved  by  any  political  change. 
It  lies  deeper  than  forms  of  government  ;  it  exists  under  all 
forms.  It  can  be  solved  under  a  republic  or  a  monarchy,  though 
the  latter  offers  advantages  towards  its  solution,  which  the 
former  does  not  possess.  As  already  indicated,  the  process  of 
change  must  be  gradual,  not  sudden  or  destructive.  No  val- 
uable human  institution,  whether  in  the  domain  of  thought, 
morals,  or  economics,  should  be  sacrificed.  The  production  and 
distribution  of  wealth  should  be  continued  at  least  upon  their 
present  scale,  and  the  way  should  be  opened  for  extending 
them.  Capital  must  not  be  swept  away,  but  a  balance  to  the 
power  of  capital  secured.  UncLer  any  tolerable  form  of  society, 
laborers,  landholders,  and  capitalists,  in  the  sense  of  managers, 
must  exist  together.  The  ordinary  laborers  cannot  manage  the 
works  of  production.  If  they  should  successfully  attempt  it, 
the  result  would  be  the  universality  of  corporation  property,  the 
worst  and  most  tyrannical  of  all  forms  of  ownership. 

For  this  reason,  and  because  Lassalle  proceeded  by  agitation 
and  antagonized  the  government,  Rodbertus  would  have  nothing 
to  do  with  him.  The  two  agreed  in  their  theoretical  views  and 
ultimate  objects,  but  they  could  not  agree  as  to  practical  methods. 
It  appears  from  his  correspondence  that  Lassalle  repeatedly 
begged  Rodbertus  to  aid  his  movement,  to  offer  some  positive 


POLITICAL  SCIENCE  QUARTERLY. 


[Vol.  1. 


programme.  He  accused  Rodbertus  of  being  visionary,  and 
promised,  if  he  would  present  something  definite  and  tangible, 
to  take  it  into  consideration.  But  all  appeals  were  in  vain. 
Rodbertus  insisted  that  the  laborers  were  not  ready  for  action. 
They  would  not  unite,  because  community  feeling  was  not  de- 
veloped within  them.  They  were  too  ignorant  of  the  problem 
and  the  conditions  under  which  it  must  be  solved.  They  must 
pass  through  a  long  course  of  training,  intellectual  as  well  as  in 
the  school  of  experience,  before  they  will  be  ready  .to  attempt 
the  final  solution.  The  other  classes  need  developing  also,  as 
truly  as  the  laborers.  The  moral  tone  of  society  must  be  raised, 
its  will  power  increased.  Class  antagonism  should  be  discour- 
aged rather  than  intensified.  The  nation  must  move  together 
under  the  lead  of  its  government,  if  any  true  social  progress  is 
to  be  made.  Strikes  will  be  of  no  avail.  They  have  not  bene- 
fited the  laborer's  condition  in  England.  The  methods  of 
trades-unions  are  open  to  serious  objection.  Association  is 
the  all-important  thing,  but  it  must  be  managed  on  peaceful 
principles. 

The  difference  between  the  spirit  of  Rodbertus  and  that  of 
Marx  appears  here  very  clearly.  The  latter  held  that  indi- 
viduals could  accomplish  nothing  as  such.  The  evils  of  society 
must  develop  until  they  become  intolerable ;  and  therefore  the 
course  to  pursue  was  to  increase  the  evil  as  rapidly  as  possible 
by  agitation  and  attempts  at  revolution  —  TJieorie  der  Bosheit. 
That  would  lead  to  a  violent  collapse  and  the  establishment  of 
the  new  system  by  force  —  a  Napoleonic  era. 

The  following  quotations  will  make  Rodbertus'  views  on  this 
point  still  clearer : 

The  Social  Question  is  the  problem  how  peaceably  to  transfer  society 
from  our  system,  based  on  private  propety  in  land  and  capital,  to  the 
higher  order  which  is  necessarily  and  historically  to  follow  it,  and  the 
signs  of  the  approach  of  which  are  already  appearing. 

The  Social  Question  is  not  to  be  solved  upon  the  streets  with  paving 
stones  and  petroleum.  Decrees  might  be  obtained  which  would  suffice. 
But  by  these  the  Social  Question  would  be  smothered  in  the  cradle. 
However,  it  has  already  grown  up  above  our  heads,  and  cannot  be 


No.  4.] 


SCIENTIFIC  SOCIALISM. 


583 


solved  at  present.  All  we  can  now  do  is  to  organize.  We  must  proceed 
carefully,  and  not  destroy  the  plant  by  rough  usage.  Social  peace, 
unified  political  power,  great  preparations  and  deep-laid  combinations, 
made  quietly  and  with  order  and  energy,  —  these  are  the  conditions  of 
the  solution  of  the  Social  Question. 

If  conservative  means  the  conserving  of  accursed  plunder,  then  there 
is  nothing  more  anti-conservative  than  the  Social  Question.  But  if  con- 
servative means  strengthening  the  power  of  the  monarchy,  peaceful 
reforms,  harmonizing  pi  social  classes  under  the  aegis  and  according  to 
the  rule  of  suum  cuique,  then  there  is  nothing  more  conservative  than 
the  Social  Question. 

The  works  of  Rodbertus  abound  in  passages  similar  to  these. 
One  of  his  favorite  illustrations  is  that  the  transition  to  the 
new  order  will  be  like  that  from  the  invertebrates  to  the  verte- 
brates in  the  animal  kingdom.  Now  the  state  has  as  little 
organic  adaptation  to  the  rest  of  society  as  the  head  would  have, 
if  it  were  placed  upon  the  back  of  an  insect.  The  state  should 
be  placed  at  the  top  of  society  and  in  organic  connection  with 
it,  so  that  its  guiding  influence  may  be  felt  through  the  whole 
body. 

But  it  must  not  be  imagined  that  Rodbertus  was  destitute  of 
a  practical  programme.  Although  he  avoided  agitation,  he  was 
not  simply  the  leader  of  a  philosophical  school.  He  distin- 
guished specific  diseases  in  the  body  politic  from  the  general 
malady.  To  the  former  he  would  apply  specific  remedies,  and 
that  immediately.  A  case  in  point  is  the  lack  of  credit  accom- 
modation and  the  burden  of  debt,  from  which  the  German  land- 
owners are  suffering.  The  specific  remedy  which  he  would 
apply  to  that  is  the  establishment  of  a  system  of  banks,  and  the 
introduction  of  the  rent-principle. 

Relative  are  also  to  be  distinguished  from  final  solutions. 
The  former  will  only  prepare  the  way  for  the  latter.  The  final 
solution  of  the  social  problem  will  be  found  where  the  system 
of  private  property  in  the  instruments  of  production  has  been 
succeeded  by  that  of  pure  income  property,  and  when  the 
management  of  production  and  distribution  has  been  assumed  by 
the  state.  This  involves  a  transition  from  one  social  order  to 
another  radically  different,  from  the  present  to  the  ideal  state. 


5*4 


POLITICAL  SCIENCE  QUARTERLY. 


[Vol.  I. 


The  new  social  order  is  so  remote  that  anything  more  than 
hints  at  its  nature  would  be  useless  now.  But  there  are  pre- 
paratory reforms,  which  can  be  carried  out  under  the  present 
system.  Among  these  are  statistical  inquiries  on  the  largest 
scale  concerning  the  hours  of  labor,  the  amount  of  work  per- 
formed, and  the  income  of  the  laboring  classes.  These  should 
show  both  what  is,  and  what  should  be.  They  should  be  gath- 
ered from  existing  conditions,  and  issued  with  such  promptness 
that  they  can  be  used  as  the  basis  of  legislation.  A  reform 
should  at  once  be  begun  in  the  system  of  taxation.  The  rule 
to  be  followed  is  that  the  heaviest  rate  of  taxation  should  fall 
on  money  capital,  especially  when  it  exists  in  larger  amounts ; 
the  next  lower  on  other  movable  property ;  the  next  on  land  ; 
and  the  lowest  on  labor.  The  necessities  of  life  should  not  be 
taxed.  A  heavy  tax  should  be  laid  on  inheritance,  increasing  in 
amount  as  the  relationship  of  the  heir  becomes  more  remote. 

The  above  reforms  will  operate  indirectly  toward  the  solution 
of  the  labor  problem.  The  introduction  of  the  "  normal  labor- 
day,"  and  of  factory  inspection,  will  tend  directly  to  that  end. 
In  the  former  case  the  only  object  aimed  at,  for  the  present, 
should  be  to  restrict  the  hours  of  labor  to  a  reasonable  length. 
Ten  hours  would  be  a  good  average,  but  this  could  not  be 
enforced  in  all  forms  of  business.  All  necessary  allowances 
should  be  made.  Sunday  labor  should  be  discouraged.  The 
fixing  of  the  normal  day's  labor  is  held  in  reserve.  The  Eng- 
lish system  of  factory  inspection,  with  some  modifications,  is 
recommended. 

Another  class  of  reforms  are  those  which  contain  the  germ 
of  the  new  regime ;  viz.,  the  extension  of  state  enterprise.  The 
railway,  telegraph,  post-office,  and  tobacco  monopoly  are  illus- 
trations of  this.  The  history  of  these  under  government  control 
shows  that  the  economic  sphere  of  the  state  can  be  enlarged. 
On  this  question  Rodbertus  claims  to  occupy  a  position  between 
the  Manchester  school,  which  rejects  all  state  interference,  and 
the  more  extreme  socialists,  who  say  that  state  control  is  the 
best  under  all  circumstances.  It  is  the  best  under  certain 
circumstances.    It  may  improve  the  organization  of  society ; 


No.  4.] 


SCIENTIFIC  SOCIALISM. 


585 


it  is  the  only  way  in  which  to  prevent  the  extension  of  monop- 
oly; the  state  may  thereby  secure  more  cheaply  than  other- 
wise the  articles  which  it  consumes.  The  principle  is  right ;  the 
only  question  is  that  of  its  application.  The  aid  of  the  state  must 
not  be  invoked  in  a  spirit  of  favoritism  toward  the  laborers,  or 
any  other  class.  Its  essence  is  that  it  substitutes  public  for 
private  interest,  as -a  controlling  motive.  It  asserts  the  preroga- 
tives of  the  community,  as  against  those  exercised  by  the 
officials  of  a  joint  stock  company.  If  it  had  control  of  railways 
and  bank  notes,  it  would  have  a  powerful  weapon  to  use  against 
crises.  The  domain  of  state  activity,  meaning  by  state  the 
central  organ  of  society,  changes  with  historic  progress.  No 
hard  and  fast  bounds  can  be  set  to  it.  Its  limits  are  never  the 
same  in  any  two  periods  of  history.  In  general,  as  the  social 
organism  becomes  more  complex  and  highly  developed,  the 
activity  of  the  state  increases  both  extensively  and  intensively. 
All  signs  indicate  that  we  live  in  such  a  period. 

After  society  has  become  sufficiently  accustomed  to  state 
control,  and  methods  of  administration  have  been  elaborated, 
then  the  time  will  be  ripe  for  more  decisive  measures.  The 
period  of  transition  will  then  be  entered  upon.  The  statesman 
must  then  aim  at  obtaining  for  the  laboring  classes  the  highest 
available  rate  of  wages.  Even  though  we  hold  that  the  wage- 
fund  theory  is  false,  there  must  be,  at  any  given  time,  some 
limit  to  the  rise  of  wages.  A  certain  sum  in  each  line  of 
business  must  be  fixed  upon  and-striven  for  by  the  state.  This 
should  not  be  so  high  as  to  hinder  production,  nor  so  low  as  to 
injure  the  laborers.  It  is  useless  to  wait  for  such  work  as  this 
to  be  done  by  the  church,  education,  self-help,  or  by  letting 
things  go  as  they  please.  The  state  alone  can  effect  it.  But 
it  must  be  careful  not  to  infringe  upon  the  freedom  of  inheri- 
tance, of  alienation,  or  of  mortgaging  landed  property ;  upon 
the  right  of  placing  or  disposing  of  capital ;  upon  the  right  of 
settlement,  in  its  broadest  sense ;  and  the  right  to  choose 
a  calling.  All  these  must  be  preserved  intact.  The  state  must 
solve  the  labor  problem  on  the  basis  of  a  pure  wage  system, 
and  it  takes  the  initiative  simply  because  employers  and  laborers 
will  not  do  so. 


586 


POLITICAL  SCIENCE  QUARTERLY.  [Vol.  I. 


Not  only  must  the  state  secure  a  rate  of  wages  which  is  up 
to  the  necessary  limit,  but  it  must  obtain  for  all  laborers  an 
income,  the  growth  of  which  shall  keep  pace  with  the  increase 
of  their  productivity.  It  will  therefore  be  necessary  from  time 
to  time,  as  the  productivity  of  labor  increases,  to  increase  the 
amount  of  income.  This  means  the  periodical  fixing  of  the  rate 
of  wages  by  government  according  to  the  results  obtained  from 
statistical  investigation.  If  this  be  done,  labor  will  cease  to  be 
a  commodity,  at  the  mercy  of  the  law  of  supply  and  demand. 

It  is  clear  that  by  the  time  this  point  is  reached,  private,  or 
rent-bearing  property  in  the  instruments  of  production  will  have 
ceased.  Collective,  or  state  property  will  have  taken  its  place. 
Capitalists  and  landowners  will  not  be  expropriated,  or  arbitra- 
rily dealt  with.  They  will  still  continue  to  manage  their  enter- 
prises. But  they  will  do  it,  not  according  to  the  system  of  free 
contract,  but  under  the  condition  prescribed  by  the  state.  This 
will  be  that  they  surrender  to  the  state,  and  through  it  to  their 
employees,  all  their  profits  which  exceed  fair  wages  of  superin- 
tendence. They,  like  all  others,  will  be  rewarded  in  proportion 
to  their  labor,  and  to  that  alone.  All  accumulation  of  capital 
from  profits  will  cease.  All  classes  of  producers  will  be  viewed 
solely  from  the  standpoint  of  labor.  Property  will  not  be  abol- 
'.shed,  but  it  will  take  the  form  of  income-property ;  that  is, 
the  right  of  each  to  the  full  product  of  his  labor,  minus  that 
which  the  state  will  take  for  its  own  support.  National  income 
will  evidently  consist  of  two  parts,  capital  and  income-property ; 
the  former  that  portion  of  the  product  which  is  devoted  to  future 
production,  the  latter  the  part  consumed.  There  will  be  no 
need  of  waiting  for  capital  to  accumulate  before  starting  enter- 
prises, because  all  will  take  their  pay  from  the  product  as  it  is 
produced,  and  the  state  will  see  to  it  that  demand  is  adapted  to 
supply.  Artificial  monopolies,  and  the  waste  arising  therefrom, 
will  be  avoided. 

The  central  point  in  Rodbertus'  theory  of  the  ideal  social 
order  is  the  adaptation  of  national  supply  to  national  demand 
by  the  state.  It  is  only  in  that  way  that  the  mischievous  influ- 
ence of  competition  can  be  abolished  and  the  interests  of  the 


No.  4.] 


SCIENTIFIC  SOCIALISM. 


587 


community  secured.  Then  only  can  the  results  mentioned 
above  be  obtained.  The  officials  of  the  central  government 
must  ultimately  superintend  production  and  distribution.  When 
they  have  obtained  this  power,  they  will  periodically  ascertain 
by  statistical  investigation  the  extent  and  character  of  the  social 
demand.  They  will  then  so  guide  production  that  the  supply 
of  commodities  shall  always  correspond  to  that  demand.  This 
problem,  which  seems  so  vast,  he  claims  can  be  solved  by  means 
of  the  principle  of  time-labor. 

We  may  suppose  that  the  normal  labor-day  has  long  been 
established.  If  we  combine  with  this  the  idea  of  normal  day's 
work,  we  have  the  conception  of  tirne-labor.  The  quantity  of 
labor-power  expended  by  a  workman  during  a  normal  clay, 
though  varying  greatly  according  to  the  nature  of  the  occupa- 
tion, the  skill  and  energy  of  the  laborer,  etc.,  may  be  reduced  to 
an  average.  This  will  be  a  normal  day's  work,  the  work  per- 
formed by  an  average  laborer.  This,  under  the  name  time- 
'abor,  may  serve  as  an  ideal  standard  of  measurement.  Its 
objective  form  will  be  the  product  of  the  day's  work.  Now  the 
productivity  of  all  laborers  in  each  branch  of  industry  can  be 
ascertained  and  expressed  in  the  terms  of  the  standard.  But 
the  sum  of  these,  at  any  time,  will  be  the  social  supply.  The 
work  of  calculating  averages  must  be  done  for  each  line  of  busi- 
ness separately.  It  will  be  a  difficult  undertaking,  but  the  fact 
that  H.  Peters,  the  architect,  working  with  Rodbertus,  has 
performed  the  calculations  fop-the  labor  of  a  carpenter,  shows 
that  it  is  practicable.  The  state  must  cause  the  estimate,  and 
hence  the  standard,  to  be  changed  from  time  to  time,  as  the 
productivity  of  labor  increases. 

The  work  of  distributing  the  supply  of  commodities  so  as  to 
satisfy  the  social  demand  will  be  managed  as  follows.  The 
value  of  all  products,  as  well  as  the  efficiency  of  labor,  can  be 
ascertained  by  comparing  them  with  the  standard.  By  means 
of  this  a  wage,  or  share  in  the  product,  can  be  given  to  each 
laborer,  which  exactly  corresponds  to  the  service  he  has  ren- 
dered. If  a  laborer  in  half  a  day  produces  a  commodity  similar 
to  that  made  by  the  average  workman  in  his  trade,  working 


588 


POLITICAL  SCIENCE  QUARTERLY. 


[Vol.  I. 


with  average  skill  and  energy  during  an  entire  day  (the  stand- 
ard), he  will  receive  a  full  day's  wages.  If  it  takes  another 
laborer  two  days  to  perform  the  same  work,  he  will  receive  no 
more  than  a  day's  wages.  Thus  not  only  is  a  means  devised 
for  measuring  the  value  of  all  commodities  in  the  terms  of 
labor,  but  we  can,  with  its  help,  distinguish  qualities  of  labor 
and  assign  rewards  corresponding  to  efficiency. 

The  last  step  in  the  process  of  establishing  the  socialistic 
state  will  be  taken  when  a  form  of  paper  money  adapted  to  the 
needs  of  such  a  community  is  issued,  and  magazines  for  the 
storing  of  products  before  their  distribution  are  built  by  the 
government.  To  these  magazines  all  commodities  will  be  car- 
ried after  they  are  produced.  Notes  or  certificates  of  work  will 
be  given  to  each  producer  by  the  state  in  amount  equal  to  the 
labor  he  has  performed.  On  presenting  these  at  the  public 
warehouses,  such  products  as  the  laborer  has  earned  can  be 
obtained.  In  parts  of  this  plan  the  influence  of  Proudhon  can 
be  traced. 

Such  is  the  outline  of  Rodbertus'  theory  of  the  socialistic 
state  and  of  the  method  of  transition  to  it.  He  claimed  to  have 
thought  it  out  even  to  its  details,  but  forbore  publishing  a  com- 
plete picture  of  his  ideal,  because  the  public  was  not  ready  for 
it.  It  is  the  ideal,  however,  toward  which  all  scientific  social- 
ists of  this  generation  are  working.  Because  only  hints  of  his 
views  concerning  the  ultimate  solution  of  the  social  problem 
were  contained  in  the  works  issued  before  his  death,  some  have 
claimed  that  Rodbertus  was  not  a  socialist.  There  has  been  a 
tendency  to  class  him  with  Sismondi,  a  critic  of  existing  society, 
but  without  positive  plans  for  the  removal  of  its  evils.  But 
Rodbertus,  as  truly  as  Marx,  considered  the  abolition  of  private 
property  in  land  and  capital  to  be  the  only  sufficient  remedy  for 
our  social  ills.  That  proves  him  to  have  been,  not  a  man  with 
socialistic  tendencies  simply,  but  a  socialist.  He  looked  forward 
to  the  development  of  a  form  of  society  wherein  the  state  should 
assume  entire  control  of  production  and  distribution.1  Compe- 

1  For  full  statement  of  legitimate  conclusions  from  Rodbertus'  doctrines  see 
Schaffle,  Bau  und  Leben  des  socialen  Ktirpers,  Bd.  2,  S.  457. 


No.  4.] 


SCIENTIFIC  SOCIALISM. 


589 


tition,  exchange,  the  regulation  of  prices  by  the  action  of  supply 
and  demand,  would  cease.  Money  would  no  longer  be  needed. 
Credit  and  all  its  institutions  would  disappear.  All  producers 
and  consumers  would  be  regarded  from  the  standpoint  of  labor ; 
wages  would  be  the  only  form  of  income.  Public  officials, 
elected  or  appointed  for  each  district,  would  ascertain  the 
demand  for  the  various  commodities  produced  there,  provide  for 
their  supply,  and  fix  the  rates  of  wages  according  to  the  rule 
described  above.  All  these  officials  would  be  under  the  control 
of  a  department  of  the  central  government.  The  production 
and  distribution  of  wealth  for  the  entire  nation  would  be  under 
the  supervision  of  this  central  organ.  The  books  kept  by  the 
state  would  contain  the  most  perfect  picture  of  every  depart- 
ment of  the  economic  life  of  the  nation.  Commodities,  when 
produced,  would  be  stored  in  public  warehouses,  and  thence 
distributed  by  means  of  certificates  of  work.  The  state  would 
take  immediately  what  was  necessary  for  its  own  support. 
Hence  national  debts  and  the  modern  system  of  taxation  would 
disappear.  With  the  surplus  remaining  after  necessary  expenses 
were  paid,  the  state  might  patronize  literature,  science,  and  art 
on  the  most  magnificent  scale.  Public  education  would  be 
carefully  provided  for.  Freedom  of  trade  with  other  nations 
could  be  maintained  by  the  socialistic  state. 

Rodbertus,  we  repeat,  always  insisted  that  no  valuable  social 
institution  should  be  sacrificed  in  the  transition  to  the  new 
order.  He  meant  by  this  that^individual  freedom  in  the  choice 
of  an  occupation,  incitement  to  skill,  energy,  and  carefulness  in 
production  and  in  the  work  of  the  state  officials  should  be 
secured  by  means  of  an  appropriately  graded  system  of  wages. 
Also  he  would  not  abolish  inheritance,  only  restrict  it.  There- 
fore the  family  could  exist  in  its  present  form  under  the  new 
system.  Consumption  would  be  for  the  most  part  unrestricted 
by  the  socialistic  state.  There  would  be  no  encouragement  to 
amass  large  fortunes,  because  they  could  not  be  employed  pro- 
ductively. Hence  laws  against  luxury  need  not  be  very  numer- 
ous or  severe.  Moreover,  pauperism  would  disappear  with  its 
causes,  and  all  the  poorer  classes  would  be  able  to  maintain 
independent  homes. 


590 


POLITICAL  SCIENCE  QUARTERLY. 


[Vol.  I. 


Rodbertus  evidently  thought  that  the  church  could  be  main- 
tained and  its  operations  carried  on  as  well  under  the  social- 
istic, as  under  the  present  system  of  society.  Of  course  its 
alliance  with  capital,  if  any  such  there  be,  must  cease.  That, 
viewed  from  the  socialistic  standpoint,  would  be  the  completion 
of  the  work  of  the  Reformation.  But  perfect  freedom  of 
thought  and  worship  would  be  consistent  with  the  spirit  of  the 
new  system,  and  there  might  be  less  temptation  to  worldliness 
and  more  devotion  to  good  works  than  now.  The  essentially 
Christian  element  in  socialism,  which  is  emphasized  by  Laveleye 
and  other  writers,  is  not  pointed  out  by  Rodbertus,  because  he 
treats  the  subject  wholly  from  the  standpoint  of  the  economist. 
But  it  is  in  perfect  harmony  with  his  general  position  and  spirit. 
He  is  not  materialistic,  not  irreligious,  not  destructively  revolu- 
tionary, not  exclusively  devoted  to  the  interests  of  one  class  as 
opposed  to  those  of  the  others.  His  aim  is  by  a  system  of 
checks  and  balances  to  secure  all  that  is  valuable  and  put  an 
end  to  strife. 

If  this  economic  millennium  is  ever  to  be  realized,  it  of 
course  must  be  preceded  by  a  most  important  change  in  the 
spirit  of  society.  Externally,  the  introduction  of  the  socialistic 
state  would  be  effected  by  a  development  of  the  system  of 
administration.  The  idea  was  hatched  in  the  heads  of  Germans 
who  have  always  been  accustomed  to  an  elaborate  admin- 
istrative system.  The  spirit  of  officialism  has  always  been 
dominant  in  Prussia.  Political  and  economic  freedom  in  that 
country  was  almost  thrust  upon  the  people,  not  extorted  by 
generations  of  conflict  with  oppressive  governments.  Jealousy 
of  state  interference,  so  much  of  it  as  exists,  has  for  the  most 
part  been  imported  from  France  and  England.1  Therefore  the 
confidence  shown  by  the  German  people  and  by  the  majority 
of  their  political  philosophers  in  the  capacity  of  the  state  to 
solve  all  problems  can  scarcely  be  understood  by  an  American 
or  Englishman.  They  are  accustomed  to  a  highly  organized 
civil  service.  A  most  important  object  of  the  system  of  na- 
tional education  is  to  prepare  for  official  life.    It  is  considered 

1  J.  R.  Seeley,  Life  and  Times  of  Stein. 


No.  4-] 


SCIENTIFIC  SOCIALISM. 


591 


an  honorable  calling.  The  best  talent  of  the  country,  through- 
out this  century,  has  been  devoted  either  directly  or  indirectly 
to  the  service  of  the  state.  Twice,  once  at  the  beginning  of 
the  century,  and  again  in  our  own  time,  the  greatest  statesman 
of  his  generation  has  been  placed  in  control  of  affairs  long 
enough  to  impress  his  personality  on  contemporary  events. 
The  rapid  material,  progress  of  Germany  since  1870;  the  suc- 
cessful operation  of  the  railroads  and  telegraph  by  the  state ; 
the  fact  that  the  Prussian  government  has  always  controlled 
the  mining  industry,  forests,  and  large  public  domains,  are  con- 
sidered good  omens  of  success  if  the  state  should  continue  to 
extend  the  scope  of  its  activity.  Therefore,  most  German  theo- 
rists acknowledge  the  abstract  possibility  of  such  a  perfecting 
of  the  science  and  art  of  administration,  that  much  of  raw  pro- 
duction, manufacturing,  and  transportation  in  their  own  coun- 
try could  be  carried  on  by  the  state.  This,  so  far  as  it  goes,  is 
in  agreement  with  the  view  of  Rodbertus.  But  he,  as  well  as 
they,  realized  fully  that  a  long  period  must  elapse  before  any 
change  of  this  character  could  be  brought  about.  Socialism, 
according  to  him,  is  the  opposite  of  individualism.  Solidarity, 
community  feeling,  public  spirit,  is  the  motive  of  action  to  which 
it  appeals,  while  self-interest  is  the  peculiar  motive  of  individu- 
alism. He  would  by  no  means  exclude  the  latter,  but  he  would 
bring  the  former  to  a  place  of  equal  prominence  with  it.  He 
did  not  believe  in  state-help  alone,  but  in  self-help  supplemented 
by  state-help. 

But  before  the  socialistic  ideal  can  be  realized,  the  grosser 
forms  of  self-seeking  must  disappear.  Men  must  abandon  their 
selfishness  to  a  degree.  Honesty  must  prevail,  both  among  the 
official  class  and  outside.  Without  the  support  of  a  public 
opinion  in  harmony  with  socialism,  the  socialistic  state  would 
be  doomed  to  failure.  No  system  of  administration,  however 
well  devised,  would  work  smoothly  under  any  other  conditions. 
So  long  as  the  capitalistic  spirit  prevails  in  society,  capitalism 
must  be  maintained.  Socialism,  if  established  now,  would  have 
to  rest  upon  force ,  and  that,  according  to  Rodbertus,  is  not  the 
condition  of  progress.    Hence  he  urged  that  a  long  course  of 


592 


POLITICAL  SCIENCE  QUARTERLY. 


[Vol.  L 


social  training  is  necessary  before  the  establishment  of  the 
socialistic  state  can  be  even  attempted.  Marx  and  Lassalle 
never  insisted  on  this,  and  therefore  their  teachings  have  a 
more  revolutionary  character.  The  object  aimed  at  is  the  same, 
but  the  method  of  reaching  it  is  different.  It  is  not  so  much 
upon  the  fact  that  Rodbertus  was  the  first  to  formulate  the 
theory  of  the  socialistic  state  (i 837-1 842)  that  his  claim  to  be 
the  leader  of  that  school  of  thought  rests,  as  upon  his  clear 
appreciation  of  the  only  way  in  which  the  ideal  can  ever  be 
realized.  He  thought  that  a  greater  degree  of  social  equality 
could  be  secured  without  encroaching  seriously  upon  essential 
freedom.  But  in  order  to  do  this,  the  work  of  reform  must  not 
be  pushed  faster  than  society  is  willing  to  advance.  The  legal 
bonds  within  which  society  moves  should  always  correspond  to 
its  inner  spirit.  When,  however,  the  time  is  ripe  for  an  impor- 
tant change,  it  can  be  made  quickly,  as  was  shown  by  the 
experience  of  Prussia  between  1807  and  1820.  During  that 
short  period,  under  the  leadership  of  Stein  and  Hardenberg, 
the  feudal  system  was  cast  aside,  and  freedom  of  competition, 
together  with  a  whole  series  of  administrative  reforms,  was 
introduced. 

In  order  to  criticise  aright  any  system  of  thought  or  public 
policy,  it  is  necessary  to  know  the  best  it  has  to  offer.  When 
we  denounce  the  average  labor  agitator,  or  the  statements  con- 
tained in  the  manifestoes  of  the  International,  we  do  not 
necessarily  attack  socialism.  It  would  not  be  just  to  hold  the 
theory  of  individualism  or  free  competition  responsible  for  the 
exaggerated  claims  of  some  of  its  advocates.  Socialism  is  a 
system  of  economic  thought,  standing  over  against  laissez  fairc. 
It  is  the  outgrowth  of  social  conflict  and  of  the  development  of 
historic  study.  During  the  last  twenty  years  it  has  certainly 
wrought  a  great  change  in  theoretical  political  economy.  That 
the  problems  of  distribution  are  recognized  and  treated  now  so 
much  more  prominently  than  by  the  older  writers,  is  due  to 
socialism.  Its  doctrines,  that  labor  in  a  complex  society  is  the 
only  source  of  value,  and  that  under  the  influence  of  competi- 
tion wages  must  remain  at  or  near  the  starvation  point,  are 


No.  4.] 


SCIENTIFIC  SOCIALISM. 


593 


exaggerations,  borrowed  from  English  economists,  which  can  be 
easily  detected  and  exposed.  But  they  have  helped  to  correct 
perhaps  as  serious  exaggerations  on  the  other  side.  The  theory 
that  free  competition  always  operates  beneficently  has,  as  its 
correlative,  the  Darwinian  hypothesis  of  natural  selection  ap- 
plied to  society.  Humanitarian  impulses  are  sentiment ;  fail- 
ures are  always  the  result  of  vice  or,  what  is  worse,  weakness. 
The  advocate  of  laissez  faire  starts  with  the  individual,  forms 
his  premises  and  draws  his  conclusions  from  the  standpoint  of 
the  successful  producer  and  distributor  of  wealth.  The  socialist 
starts  from  the  opposite  pole,  the  community ;  seeks  to  explain 
economic  phenomena  from  the  social  standpoint,  and  keeps  ever 
in  sight  the  needs  of  the  nation  as  a  whole.  These  views  sup- 
plement one  another.  The  policy  of  every  civilized  nation  is 
the  result  of  the  interaction  of  the  two.  If  socialism  is  now 
considered  revolutionary,  individualism  was  in  much  the  same 
position  a  century  ago. 

In  view  of  the  theory  stated  in  this  paper,  several  of  the 
stock  arguments  against  socialism  fall  away.  The  system  is 
not  necessarily  materialistic  or  irreligious,  though  some  of  its 
advocates  may  be.  It  does  not  propose  the  abolition  of  prop- 
erty, or  the  levelling  of  incomes.  It  would  not  abolish  freedom 
for  the  sake  of  establishing  equality.  It  is  not  necessarily  rev- 
olutionary, or  anti-conservative.  If  its  ideal  can  ever  be  reached, 
self-help  would  not  be  sacrificed  to  state-help.  Socialism  has 
no  appreciable  connection  with  protectionism.  The  question 
then  between  socialism  and  the  present  system  is  not  one  of 
overwhelming  moral  importance,  on  which  depends  the  safety 
of  the  family,  the  church,  and  the  individual.  They  can  flourish 
or  decline  under  either  regime,  according  to  the  moral  tone  pre- 
vailing in  society. 

The  question  is  one  of  expediency,  of  ways  and  means  for 
securing  the  maximum  of  social  well-being.  Under  which  sys- 
tem can  society  perform  its  functions  the  more  economically, 
with  the  least  waste  and  the  largest  total  advantage  ?  In  order 
to  be  successful,  the  socialistic  state  would  require  a  standard  of 
public  and  private  morality  far  above  the  average  attained  in 


594 


POLITICAL  SCIENCE  QUARTERLY. 


our  best  communities  to-day.  Official  life  must  be  freed  from 
all  corruption,  from  all  tendencies  to  self-seeking,  self-indul- 
gence, or  greed.  Party  government  would  have  to  undergo  im- 
portant restrictions  and  limitations.  Patriotism  must  always 
exist  among  the  people  to  a  degree  now  only  realized  by  a  few 
during  a  great  national  struggle  for  liberty.  The  average  man 
must  be  so  highly  developed  morally,  that  he  will  be  ready  to 
sacrifice  personal  gain  and  enjoyment  for  the  good  of  the  com- 
munity. To  this  age,  a  system  with  such  requirements  can 
be  only  a  dream,  an  aspiration.  It  cannot  be  a  practical  solu- 
tion of  the  labor  question.  Under  the  conditions  stated,  any 
social  system  would  work  smoothly. 

Another  question  of  prime  importance  is,  whether  so  heroic  a 
measure  as  the  substitution  of  state  for  private  property  is,  or 
ever  will  be,  necessary.  Is  inequality  developing  so  rapidly  that 
its  progress  cannot  be  checked  by  forces  which  society,  even  in 
its  present  form,  may  call  to  its  aid  ?  The  socialists  underesti- 
mate the  incalculable  service  rendered  to  society  by  freedom 
of  competition.  The  induction  on  which  their  sweeping  con- 
clusions are  based  is  inadequate.  This  is  notably  true  of  Rod- 
bertus ;  and  in  the  case  of  Marx,  though  the  facts  adduced  are 
more  numerous,  they  are  all  drawn  from  one  side.  The  conclu- 
sion is  not  a  new  one  that  socialism,  as  a  criticism  of  existing 
society  and  of  some  lines  of  economic  thought,  is  rendering 
most  valuable  service.  A  healthful  scepticism  of  schools  and 
policies  is  produced  by  it.  But  as  a  practical  programme  it  has 
little  to  offer  which  views  of  a  more  moderate  character  cannot 
supply. 

Herbert  L.  Osgood 


Volume  IV.~\  March,  1889.  [Number  /. 


POLITICAL  SCIENCE 
QUARTERLY. 


SCIENTIFIC  ANARCHISM. 

IN  ANARCHISM  we  have  the  extreme  antithesis  of  social- 
ism and  communism.  The  socialist  desires  so  to  extend  the 
sphere  of  the  state  that  it  shall  embrace  all  the  more  important 
concerns  of  life.  The  communist,  at  least  of  the  older  school, 
would  make  the  sway  of  authority  and  the  routine  which  follows 
therefrom  universal.  The  anarchist,  on  the  other  hand,  would 
banish  all  forms  of  authority  and  have  only  a  system  of  the 
most  perfect  liberty.  The  anarchist  is  an  extreme  individualist. 
Using  the  words  of  the  famous  revolutionary  formula,  he  would 
secure  equality  through  liberty,  while  the  socialist  would  secure 
it  through  fraternity.  The  anarchist  holds  that  the  revolt 
against  authority,  which  began  in  the  field  of  religion  with  the 
Protestant  reformation,  and  which  was  extended  into  the  realm 
of  politics  by  the  revolutionary  movement  of  the  last  century, 
will  end,  when  carried  to  its  logical  and  necessary  issue,  in  the 
abolition  of  all  government,  divine  and  human.  He  subscribes 
to  the  doctrine  contained  in  the  opening  sentences  of  the  Dec- 
laration of  Independence.  He  also  claims  that  men  who,  like 
Jefferson1  and  Herbert  Spencer,  express  great  jealousy  of  state 
control,  would,  if  they  were  logical  and  true  to  their  principles, 
become  anarchists  and  advocate  the  complete  emancipation  of 
society. 

1  "The  Declaration  of  Independence  contains  numerous  internal  evidences  to 
show  that,  were  Thomas  Jefferson  living  to-day,  he  would  be  a  pronounced  anarch- 
ist." Liberty  (the  organ  of  the  Boston  anarchists),  vol.  ii,  no.  5.  "The  anarchists 
are  simply  unterrified  Jeffersonian  Democrats."  Article  by  Benj.  R.  Tucker,  in 
Liberty,  vol.  v,  no.  16. 


2 


POLITICAL  SCIENCE  QUARTERLY.         [Vol.  IV. 


I.  Proudhon. 

Anarchism,  as  a  social  theory,  was  first  elaborately  formulated 
by  Prouclhon.  In  the  first  part  of  his  work,  What  is  Property?1 
he  briefly  stated  the  doctrine  and  gave  it  the  name  anarchy, 
absence  of  a  master  or  sovereign.    In  that  connection  he  said  : 

In  a  given  society  the  authority  of  man  over  man  is  inversely  propor- 
tional to  the  stage  of  intellectual  development  which  that  society  has 
reached.  .  .  .  Property  and  royalty  have  been  crumbling  to  pieces 
ever  since  the  world  began.  As  man  seeks  justice  in  equality,  so  society 
seeks  order  in  anarchy. 

About  twelve  years  before  Proudhon  published  his  views, 
Josiah  Warren 2  reached  similar  conclusions  in  America.  But 
as  the  Frenchman  possessed  the  originality  necessary  to  the 
construction  of  a  social  philosophy,  we  must  regard  him  as 
altogether  the  chief  authority  upon  scientific  anarchism.3 

Proudhon,  in  his  destructive  criticism  of  existing  institutions, 
made  constant  use  of  the  logical  formula  of  Hegel :  thesis,  antith- 
esis, and  synthesis.  Negation  he  called  his  first  principle,  as 
that  of  God  is  in  religion  and  thought  in  the  system  of  Des- 
cartes.4 He  denied  the  truth  of  every  dogma  and  showed  the 
contradiction  or  "antinomy  "  5  existing  in  every  human  institution. 

1  See  Tucker's  translation,  pp.  271-288. 

2  For  an  account  of  this  man,  see  Ely's  Labor  Movement  in  America,  p.  238. 
Also  Warren's  books :  True  Civilization  an  Immediate  Necessity,  and  Practical  Details 
of  Equitable  Commerce.  His  views  are  best  stated  in  Stephen  Pearl  Andrews'  True 
Constitution  of  Government,  New  York,  1852. 

3  So  far  as  I  know,  all  scientific  writers  who  have  discussed  Proudhon  have  placed 
him  among  the  socialists.  But  at  the  same  time  they  have  either  expressly  or  tacitly 
protested  against  the  classification.  It  has  always  been  admitted  that  he  stands  apart 
from  the  other  revolutionary  leaders.  In  the  light  of  the  development  of  anarchism 
during  the  last  ten  years,  his  position  seems  to  be  clearly  defined.  Amid  all  the 
inconsistencies  and  contradictions  which  may  be  found  in  his  works,  his  central 
thought  is  clear.  His  contemporaries  did  not  understand  him  because  they  had  not 
conceived  of  anarchism. 

1  <  Euvres  completes,  tome  6,  p.  144. 

6  In  his  Systeme  des  Contradictions  economiques,  tome  I,  p.  67,  Proudhon  explains 
antinomy  to  mean  a  law  with  a  double  face  or  with  two  tendencies,  like  the  cen- 
tripetal and  centrifugal  forces  into  which  attraction  may  be  analyzed.  These  oppo- 
site tendencies  do  not  destroy  one  another,  but  if  kept  in  equilibrium  "are  the  pro- 
creative  cause  of  motion,  life,  and  progress." 


No.  i.] 


SCIENTIFIC  ANARCHISM. 


3 


Like  all  a  priori  reasoners,  however,  he  was  forced  to  start  with 
a  dogma,  and  this  was  that  justice  and  certain  rights — emphat- 
ically those  of  liberty  and  equality  —  are  natural,  exist  prior  to 
law,  and  furnish  the  criteria  for  judging  all  legal  and  social  sys- 
tems. He  defined  justice  to  be  "the  recognition  of  the  equality 
between  another's  personality  and  our  own."  1  This,  it  will  be 
seen,  is  the  golden  rule  put  into  philosophical  language.  Prou- 
dhon,  in  fact,  declares  at  the  outset 2  that  he  accepts  that  decla- 
ration of  Christ  as  the  correct  rule  of  conduct ;  but  he  aims  to 
make  it  more  precise  and  positive  by  expounding  the  idea  of 
justice  which  it  contains.  Every  one  should  claim  from  others 
the  full  recognition  of  the  manhood  in  him,  stripped  of  all  its 
accessories,  and  should  yield  the  same  recognition  in  return.  If 
with  this  were  combined  the  humanitarian  spirit,  which  Prou- 
dhon  called  cquite,  or  social  proportionality,  a  perfect  form  of 
society  would  be  the  result.3  Equality  and  liberty  would  be 
harmonized,  and  both  would  be  developed  to  the  highest  possi- 
ble degree.  Society,  justice,  and  equality  would  then  be  three 
equivalent  terms.  All  unequal,  and  therefore  unnatural,  con- 
ditions would  disappear.  Force  would  no  longer  be  resorted 
to.  Everything  would  be  regulated  by  reason  and  persuasion. 
Thought,  knowledge,  virtue  would  hold  undisputed  sway. 

Furnished  with  this  ideal  conception  of  society,  which  he  had 
deductively  attained,  Proudhon  attacked  and  in  his  own  opinion 
demolished  every  institution  which  he  found  in  society  about 
him.  In  his  Systhne  des  contradictions  economiqucs  he  went 
through  the  entire  series  of  economic  phenomena,  —  value, 
division  of  labor,  the  use  of  machines,  competition,  credit,  prop- 
erty, international  trade,  taxation,  population,  —  showing  first 
their  beneficent  effects  and  how  they  meet  the  needs  of  a  pro- 
gressive society,  and  then  by  way  of  antithesis  their  evil  effects, 
their  fatal  tendency  toward  the  development  of  inequality. 
Like  the  socialists,  he  borrows  from  Adam  Smith  the  doctrine 
that  labor  is  the  true  measure  of  value.    The  utilities  which  it 

1  What  is  Property?  trans,  p.  231.  Proudhon  repeated  this  definition  and  ex- 
pounded it  at  length  in  a  six-volume  work  entitled  La  Justice  dans  la  Revolution. 

2  What  is  Property?  trans,  p.  26.  3  What  is  Property?  trans,  p.  242. 


4 


POLITICAL  SCIENCE  QUARTERLY.  [Vol.  IV. 


produces  should  always  exchange  in  proportion  to  their  cost. 
In  other  words,  cost  should  be  the  limit  of  price.  But  value  in 
exchange,  arising  from  demand,  is  "antinomical"  to  value  in 
use,  which  arises  from  labor  and  utility.  The  two  tend  in  dif- 
ferent directions  and  become  divorced.  We  have  therefore 
this  result :  that  the  more  utilities  are  multiplied,  the  less 
becomes  their  value.  In  the  natural  or  perfect  society,  where 
exchange-value  and  utility  are  held  in  proper  equilibrium,  this 
would  not  be  true,  but  the  value  of  any  product  would  be  the 
formula,  or  monetary  statement,  which  would  express  the  pro- 
portion which  the  product  bore  to  the  sum  of  social  wealth.1 
Then  the  producer  of  a  utility  would  receive  its  full  value  in 
exchange.  The  laborer  would  reap  the  full  benefit  of  improve- 
ments in  the  methods  of  production,  or,  as  Proudhon  expressed 
it,  "all  labor  would  leave  a  surplus." 

The  way  in  which  Proudhon  deals  with  other  and  less  obscure 
economic  phenomena  will  be  readily  seen.  For  example :  he 
declares  that  the  division  of  labor  is  a  prime  condition  of  social 
progress.  Without  it,  labor  would  be  sterile,  and  neither  wealth 
nor  equality  could  exist.  But  the  principle,  when  followed  out 
to  its  natural  consequences,  becomes  a  most  prolific  source  of 
misery.  The  realization  of  justice  in  the  economic  sphere, 
which  is  "to  give  equal  wealth  to  each  on  condition  of  equal 
labor,"  2  is  prevented.  Hours  of  labor  are  increased ;  the  con- 
ditions under  which  the  work  is  done  grow  worse ;  and  the 
laborer  suffers  mentally,  morally  and  physically.  He  tends 
downward  to  the  condition  of  a  serf,  while  his  master,  the 
owner  of  the  factory,  becomes  a  moneyed  aristocrat.  The  gulf 
between  the  two  grows  ever  wider,  and  association,  education 
or  other  schemes  of  improvement  popular  with  economists  can- 
not bridge  it.  It  would  seem  that  the  introduction  of  machines 
might  check  the  growing  inequality,  because  through  them  the 
forces  of  nature  are  made  servants  of  man.  They  both  increase 
and  cheapen  production.  They  diminish  the  amount  of  human 
labor  necessary  to  accomplish  a  given  result.    The  world  can- 

1  Systeme  des  Contradictions  economiques,  tome  I,  p.  82. 

2  What  is  Property?  trans,  p.  234. 


No.  i.] 


SCIENTIFIC  ANARCHISM. 


5 


not  do  without  them.  But  they  are  gradually  eliminating  the 
laborer,  reducing  his  wages,  making  useless  the  trade  which  he 
had  learned  and  upon  which  he  depended,  causing  over-produc- 
tion, deterioration  of  products,  disease  and  death. 

Proudhon  summed  up  his  views  on  competition  in  these 
words:  "  Competition  destroys  competition."1  By  this  he 
meant  that,  though  indestructible  in  its  principle,  competition 
in  its  present  form  should  be  abolished.  In  fact,  he  believed 
that  it  was  slowly  preparing  the  conditions  necessary  to  its  own 
destruction.  Monopoly  and  credit  he  treated  in  essentially  the 
same  way,  and  so  the  remaining  economic  categories,  till  in  the 
problem  of  population  as  stated  by  Malthus  he  found  the  cul- 
mination •  of  human  misery.  The  conclusion  which  he  reached 
was  that  we  are  living  in  a  condition  of  anarchy ;  meaning  by 
that  not  absence  of  government,  but  the  other  signification  of 
the  word,  viz. :  disorder,  confusion. 

We  need  not  follow  Proudhon  further  in  the  application  of 
his  logical  method  to  social  facts.  He  claimed  that  by  his  bril- 
liant dialectics  he  had  reduced  them  all  to  absurdities,  fraught 
however  with  infinite  harm.  For  the  present  purpose  it  is 
more  important  to  note  what  he  considered  to  be  the  source  of 
the  antinomy,  the  cause  of  inequality  and  hence  of  misery  and 
decay.  Like  the  socialists,  he  found  this  root  of  bitterness  not 
in  man  himself,  not  in  the  individual,  but  in  society.  Some- 
thing was  wrong  in  the  form  of  social  organization ;  some  evil 
institution  had  been  allowed  to  develop  which  by  its  influence 
had  thrown  the  whole  system  into  disorder.  If  this  could  be 
swept  away,  order  would  be  restored,  the  diseased  organism 
would  become  healthy  and  perfect.  The  Satan  in  the  social 
philosophy  of  Proudhon  was  property  :  not  property  right  limited 
by  social  expediency  and  high  moral  considerations,  but  the  jus 
utendi  et  abutendi  of  the  Roman  law,  the  absolutely  unlimited 
right  of  private  property.  But  he  did  not  stop  there.  Property, 
said  he,  is  not  a  natural  right,  but  is  guaranteed  and  upheld  by 
the  state.  Property  and  the  state  are  correlative  terms.  The 
two  institutions  are  reciprocally  dependent  and  must  co-exist. 

1  Systeme  des  Contradictions  6conomiques,  tome  i,  pp.  179  et  seq. 


6 


POLITICAL  SCIENCE  QUARTERLY.  [Vol.  IV. 


The  chief  function  of  the  state  is  that  of  police,  the  object  of 
which  is  to  secure  to  individuals  the  enjoyment  of  their  posses- 
sions and  of  the  privileges  connected  therewith.  In  the  thought 
of  Proudhon,  the  essence  of  property  was  not  the  thing  possessed 
nor  the  act  of  possession,  but  the  privileges,  the  power,  the 
possibility  of  gain,  of  obtaining  rent,  profit  or  interest  which 
accompanied  it.  To  him  private  property  in  the  exclusive 
Roman  sense  was  the  very  embodiment  of  inequality,  and  so 
the  efficient  cause  of  all  social  evils.  He  sought  to  sum  up  in 
the  paradox,  "property  is  robbery"  the  problem  of  human  woe. 
The  laborer,  the  result  of  whose  work  is  embodied  in  material 
form,  is  the  only  producer.  The  proprietor,  whether  he  be  land- 
lord or  capitalist,  is  an  unproductive  laborer.  He  is  a  parasite 
because  he  does  nothing  but  consume.  He  receives  without 
rendering  an  equivalent.  But  since  he  owns  the  means  of  pro- 
duction, he  can  appropriate  a  share  of  the  laborer's  products. 
Because  of  the  inequality  thus  developed,  the  tribute  exacted 
constantly  increases.  The  laborer  falls  in  debt  and  becomes 
more  and  more  dependent  on  his  employer.1  The  tenant  pays 
for  his  land  or  house  many  times  over,  but  never  becomes  its 
owner.  The  commodities  produced  by  the  workman  make  his 
employer  rich.  The  interest  paid  by  the  borrower  exceeds  the 
capital,  but  the  debt  is  never  paid.  The  proprietor  virtually 
exercises  the  rights  which  of  old  belonged  to  a  seignior  over 
his  vassal  or  to  a  master  over  his  slave.  The  state,  which  is 
organized  force,  legalizes  rent,  profit,  interest,  and  protects 
property  owners  while  they  plunder  the  rest  of  society.  Hence 
arises  the  poverty  to  which  the  masses  of  men  are  condemned, 
and  poverty  is  the  mother  of  every  form  of  crime.  Society 
thus  appears  amid  terrible  agony  to  be  ever  consuming  itself. 

These  thoughts  and  more  of  a  similar  nature  Proudhon 
poured  forth  in  volume  after  volume  during  the  years  immedi- 
ately before  and  after  the  revolution  of  1848.  He  lived  amid 
the  ideas,  the  enthusiasm  for  liberty  and  equality,  from  which 
that  movement  sprang.    So  vividly  did  he  see  and  feel  the 

1  See  the  monograph  entitled  Banque  d'Echange,  in  OEuvres  completes,  tome  6, 
pp.  1 50  et  seq. 


N?.  i.] 


SCIENTIFIC  ANARCHISM. 


7 


tragedy  of  human  existence  that  he  regarded  revolution  as 
the  only  conserving  force.  He  considered  it  inevitable,  immi- 
nent :  no  force  could  check  its  progress.  It  rested  with  society 
only  to  determine  whether  it  should  be  gradual  and  peaceful, 
or  violent.1  He  taught  the  theory  of  revolution  as  a  permanent 
factor  in  social  life.  Reaction,  he  said,  could  only  quicken  the 
onward  movement.  The  revolution  must  continue  till  right  was 
done,  till  justice  was  established. 

According  to  Proudhon  the  great  uprising  of  1789  was  not 
a  revolution,  but  only  an  important  step  of  progress.2  It  was 
an  attempt  to  establish  justice;  but  it  failed,  because  it  only 
substituted  one  form  of  government  for  another.  Had  it  abol- 
ished government  and  instituted  the  rule  of  reason,  it  would 
have  been  a  genuine  revolution.  As  it  was,  however,  the  work 
of  revolution  was  only  half  done.  Parliamentary  government, 
democracy,  the  rule  of  the  bourgeoisie  took  the  place  of  the  old 
absolutism.  The  reign  of  force  was  not  brought  to  an  end, 
but  rather  entered  upon  a  new  phase.  Militarism  continued, 
though  under  a  slightly  different  form.  Now  the  contest  is 
waged  for  the  control  of  the  markets  of  the  world  rather  than 
for  political  supremacy.  England  has  led  the  way  in  this  strug- 
gle by  the  development  of  manufacturing  and  the  overthrow  of 
her  protective  system.3  But  monopoly  supported  by  force  is 
as  triumphant  as  ever.  The  corrupting  influence  of  wealth  is 
seen  in  all  departments  of  political  life.  Hence  the  work  of 
Augast  4  must  be  taken  up  where  the  Constituent  Assembly 
left  it  and  carried  on  to  completion. 

To  Proudhon,  the  revolution  of  1848  was  the  proclamation 
of  a  new  era.  It  meant  the  substitution  of  an  economic  and 
social  regime  for  one  of  a  governmental,  feudal  and  military 
character.4    By  this  he  meant  not  a  system  in  which  any 

1  Systeme  generale  de  la  Revolution,  p.  9.  2  What  is  Property  ?  trans,  p.  32. 

3  See  chapter  on  Balance  of  Trade,  in  Systeme  des  Contradictions  economiques, 
tome  2. 

4  Idee  generale  de  la  Revolution,  pp.  177  ei  se q.  This  idea  was  also  enforced  by 
Proudhon  in  his  speech  delivered  before  the  National  Assembly,  July  31,  1848,  in 
reply  to  criticisms  of  the  committee  of  finance  on  his  report  in  favor  of  gratuity  of 
credit.    CEuvres  completes,  tome  7,  pp.  263-313, 


8 


POLITICAL  SCIENCE  QUARTERLY. 


[Vol.  IV. 


economic  class  should  become  dominant,  its  rule  being  based 
upon  political  power,  but,  as  he  expressed  it,  an  organization  of 
economic  forces  based  upon  contract  and  operating  according 
to  the  principle  of  reciprocity.  This  means  the  entire  abolition 
of  the  state  and  the  transfer  of  the  control  of  social  interests 
to  individuals,  acting  either  singly  or  in  voluntary  association. 
Such  is  the  programme  of  the  anarchists.  It  will  be  interesting 
to  examine  a  little  more  closely  the  course  of  thought  which 
led  Proudhon  to  adopt  it. 

Like  all  social  reformers,  he  was  led  to  the  study  and  criticism 
of  society  by  the  sight  of  human  misery.  In  the  early  pages 
of  What  is  Property  ? 1  he  says  that  perhaps  he  would  have 
accepted  property  as  a  fact  without  inquiring  into  its  origin, 
had  all  his  fellow  citizens  been  in  comfortable  circumstances. 
As  they  were  not,  he  would  challenge  this  chief  of  social  insti- 
tutions and  put  it  upon  its  defence.  The  result  of  his  examina- 
tion has  already  been  stated.  But  property  and  the  state  he 
found  to  be  inextricably  bound  up  together.  The  state,  prop- 
erty, inequality,  misery,  became  to  him  synonymous  terms.  It 
made  no  difference  what  the  form  of  the  government  might  be ; 
its  essential  nature  remained  always  the  same.  History  shows 
that  nations  are  revolving  in  a  fatal  circle  of  imperial  despotism, 
constitutionalism,  democracy,  and  from  this  by  political  means 
they  can  never  escape.2 

Experience  finally  proves  [he  says]  that  everywhere  and  always 
government,  however  popular  it  may  be  in  its  origin,  has  taken  sides 
with  the  richer  and  more  intelligent  class  against  the  poorer  and  more 
numerous ;  that,  after  having  for  a  time  shown  itself  liberal,  it  has  little 
by  little  become  exclusive  and  partial ;  finally,  that,  instead  of  main- 
taining liberty  and  equality  among  all,  it  has,  because  of  its  natural 
inclination  toward  privilege,  labored  obstinately  to  destroy  them. 

1  Translation,  p.  53.  In  La  Justice  dans  la  Revolution,  tome,  4,  p.  291,  Proudhon 
spoke  in  most  pathetic  terms  of  the  feeling  of  inferiority  which  oppressed  him  be- 
cause of  his  inherited  poverty.  He  felt  powerless  to  raise  himself  to  a  position 
among  the  learned  and  happy.  He  therefore  resolved  to  search  for  the  origin  of 
inequality.  He  found  that  the  economists  affirmed  the  natural  origin  and  necessity 
of  inequality,  while  the  revolution  said  that  equality  was  the  law  of  all  nature. 

2  For  Proudhon's  political  philosophy  see  Idee  generate  de  la  Revolution,  pp.  in 
et  seq.    Also  Du  Principe  Federatif,  CEuvres  completes,  tome  8. 


No.  i.] 


SCIENTIFIC  ANARCHISM. 


9 


According  to  Proudhon,  contract  is  the  only  bond  which 
can  unite  individuals  into  a  society.  But  Rousseau's  theory  of 
contract  he  rejects,  and  in  the  most  admirable  manner  reduces 
to  an  absurdity.  He  says  that  the  idea  of  contract  excludes 
that  of  government.  It  imposes  upon  the  contracting  parties 
no  obligation  but  that  which  results  from  their  personal  promise  ; 
it  is  not  subject  ta  any  external  authority;  it  alone  constitutes 
the  common  law  of  the  parties ;  it  awaits  execution  only  from 
their  initiative.1  It  should  embrace  all  citizens,  with  their 
interests  and  relations.  If  one  man  or  one  interest  is  left  out, 
it  is  no  longer  social.  The  welfare  and  liberty  of  each  citizen 
should  be  increased  by  the  contracts  ;  otherwise  it  is  a  fraud, 
and  should  be  overthrown.  It  should  be  freely  debated,  in- 
dividually assented  to,  and  signed,  nomine  proprio,  by  all  those 
who  participate  in  it.  Otherwise  it  is  systematic  spoliation. 
"All  laws  which  I  have  not  accepted  I  reject  as  an  imposition 
on  my  free  will."2  The  true  social  contract  has  nothing  in 
common  with  the  surrender  of  liberty  or  submission  to  a  burden- 
some solidarity.  The  premise  from  which  Rousseau  starts,  viz. 
that  the  people  is  a  collective  entity  having  a  moral  personality 
distinct  from  that  of  the  individual,  is  false.  The  conclusions 
drawn  from  it,  viz.  the  alienation  of  liberty  for  the  sake  of  all, 
a  government  external  to  society,  division  of  powers,  etc.,  are 
equally  false.  Rousseau  has  in  his  theory  misrepresented 
social  facts  and  neglected  the  true  and  essential  elements  of 
contract  itself.  His  theory  is  li^e  a  commercial  agreement  with 
the  names  of  the  parties  suppressed,  the  values  of  the  products 
and  services,  the  conditions  of  quality,  delivery,  price,  etc.,  in 
short  all  essential  things  omitted,  and  with  only  the  penalties 
and  jurisdictions  given.    In  other  words,  the  theory  is  absurd.3 

1  Idee  generale  de  la  Revolution,  p.  117. 

2  Idee  generale  de  la  Revolution,  p.  138.  In  Du  Principe  Federatif,  p.  53  n., 
Proudhon  defines  a  law  to  be  "  a  statute  arrived  at  as  the  result  of  arbitration  between 
human  wills." 

3  In  connection  with  the  history  of  political  theories  it  is  interesting  to  note  what 
the  anarchists  have  to  say  about  the  doctrine  upon  which  the  American  Revolution 
was  fought,  and  its  conformity  with  actual  political  facts.  Lysander  Spooner,  in  his 
Letter  to  Grover  Cleveland,  says :  "  It  was  once  said  in  this  country  that  taxation 
without  consent  is  robbery.    But  if  that  principle  were  a  true  one  in  behalf  of  three 


IO 


POLITICAL  SCIENCE  QUARTERLY. 


[Vol.  IV. 


Equally  without  reason  in  their  practical  operations  are  the 
constitutional  systems  of  government,  whether  monarchical  or 
republican,  which  are  based  upon  this  theory.  The  election 
is  the  pivot  about  which  they  revolve.  Its  fundamental  idea  is 
decision  by  number  or  lot.  In  what  respect  is  this  principle 
better  or  more  just  than  generation,  the  basis  of  the  family  ; 
than  force,  the  basis  of  the  patriarchate ;  than  faith,  the  central 
dogma  of  the  church ;  than  primogeniture,  upon  which  aristoc- 
racy rests  ?  Elections,  votes  never  decided  anything.  Inferior 
matters  of  little  importance  may  be  decided  by  arbitration ;  but 
important  things,  the  organization  of  society,  my  subsistence, 
I  will  never  submit  to  an  indirect  solution.  I  emphatically 
deny  that  the  people  in  elections  are  able  to  recognize  and 
distinguish  between  the  merits  of  rival  candidates.  But  when 
presidents  and  representatives  are  once  chosen,  they  are  my 
masters.  What  do  numbers  prove  ?  What  are  they  worth  ? 
You  refer  my  interests,  subsistence,  etc.,  to  a  Congress.  What 
connection  is  there  between  the  Congress  and  me  ?  What 
guarantee  have  I  that  the  law  which  the  Congress  makes  and 
hands  to  me  on  the  point  of  the  bayonet  will  promote  my 
interest  ? 1  Furthermore,  how  can  I,  in  such  a  situation,  main- 
tain my  dignity  as  a  sovereign  and  party  to  the  social  contract  ? 
The  democratic  theory  is  thus  an  attempt  to  harmonize  two 

millions  of  men,  it  is  an  equally  true  one  in  behalf  of  three  men,  or  of  one  man. 

Who  are  ever  taxed  without  their  consent?  Individuals  only.  Who  then  are  robbed, 
if  taxed  without  their  consent?  Individuals  only.  If  taxation  without  consent  is  rob- 
bery, the  United  States  government  has  never  had,  has  not  now,  and  is  never  likely  to 
have  an  honest  dollar  in  its  treasury."  As  soon  as  taxes  are  paid,  he  says  further, 
all  natural  rights  are  lost.  The  individual  cannot  maintain  them  against  the  police 
and  armies  which  the  government  will  procure  with  the  money. 

1  For  another  brilliant  specimen  of  the  destructive  criticism  which  the  anarchist 
applies  to  representative  government  see  Prince  Krapotkine's  chapter  on  that  subject 
in  his  Paroles  d'un  Revolte,  Paris,  1885.  One  could  not  wish  to  see  the  demos 
krateo  principle  more  completely  demolished  than  it  is  here.  The  superficiality 
and  crudity  of  the  notion  that  great  public  questions  can  be  properly  decided  by 
elections  ;  the  petty  self-seeking  of  politicians  and  party  managers,  to  say  nothing  of 
their  positive  corruption  ;  the  disturbing  influence  of  parliamentary  tactics  ;  the 
enormous  disparity  between  the  knowledge  and  strength  of  the  legislator  and  the 
number  and  magnitude  of  the  public  questions  with  which  he  has  to  deal,  are 
admirably  stated  and  illustrated.  The  files  of  any  daily  newspaper  will  substantiate 
it  all. 


No.  i.] 


SCIENTIFIC  ANARCHISM. 


wholly  inconsistent  principles,  those  of  authority  and  of  con- 
tract. The  origin  of  authority  is  in  the  family.  The  necessity 
for  the  maintenance  of  order,  for  the  establishment  of  an  arti- 
ficial, and  therefore  of  an  impossible,  harmony  between  indi- 
vidual and  common  interests,  is  the  only  argument  in  its  favor. 
This  means  that  government  is  based  upon  force,  is  in  its 
nature  and  operation  wholly  arbitrary.  The  belief  that  the 
people,  either  collectively  or  individually,  consent  to  its  acts, 
or  that  the  will  of  the  people  can  be  ascertained,  directly  by 
the  plebiscite  or  indirectly  through  so-called  public  opinion,  is  a 
superstition.  It  is  one  of  the  fictions  with  which  the  law  and 
politics  abound.  But,  Proudhon  would  say,  if  it  were  really 
possible  that  the  majority  should  rule  and  carry  its  desires  into 
effect,  its  government  would  be  as  tyrannical  as  that  of  a  single 
despot,  for  it  would  impose  upon  the  citizen  the  will  of  another, 
it  would  violate  the  true  principle  of  contract. 

Returning  then  to  the  point  whence  we  started,  it  appears 
that  Proudhon's  social  ideal  was  that  of  perfect  individual  liberty. 
Those  who  have  thought  him  a  communist  or  socialist  have 
wholly  mistaken  his  meaning.  To  be  sure  there  is  an  expres- 
sion here  and  there  in  his  works  which  savors  of  communism,1 
but  when  more  closely  examined  it  will  be  found  to  be  in 
harmony  with  the  general  trend  of  his  thought.  No  better 
argument  against  communism  can  be  found  than  is  contained 
in  the  chapter  on  that  subject  in  the  Systeme  des  Contradictions 
economiques.  In  What  is  Property?  he  speaks  of  communism 
as  follows  : 

The  disadvantages  of  communism  are  so  obvious  that  the  critics 
never  have  needed  to  employ  much  eloquence  to  thoroughly  disgust 

1  See,  for  example,  What  is  Property?  trans,  p.  244,  where  he  says  that  "ine- 
quality of  wages  cannot  be  admitted  by  law  on  the  ground  of  inequality  of  talents." 
But  on  p.  132  of  the  same  treatise  he  explains  his  meaning  as  follows  :  "Give  me  a 
society  in  which  every  kind  of  talent  bears  a  proper  numerical  relation  to  the  needs 
of  the  society,  and  which  demands  from  each  producer  only  that  which  his  special 
function  requires  him  to  produce,  and,  without  impairing  in  the  least  the  hierarchy 
of  functions,  I  will  deduce  the  equality  of  fortunes."  This  means  that  utilities  must 
be  brought  into  such  perfect  proportionality  that  there  will  be  just  as  many  Flatos 
and  Newtons  as  are  needed  and  no  more.  The  same  shall  be  true  of  all  other  pro- 
ducers down  to  the  lowest  grade. 


12 


POLITICAL  SCIENCE  QUARTERLY. 


[Vol.  IV. 


men  with  it.  The  irreparability  of  the  injustice  which  it  causes,  the 
violence  which  it  does  to  attractions  and  repulsions,  the  yoke  of  iron 
which  it  fastens  upon  the  will,  the  moral  torture  to  which  it  subjects  the 
conscience,  the  debilitating  effect  which  it  has  upon  society,  and,  to 
sum  it  all  up,  the  pious  and  stupid  uniformity  which  it  enforces  upon 
the  free,  active,  reasoning,  unsubmissive  personality  of  man,  have 
shocked  common  sense,  and  condemned  communism  by  an  irrevocable 
decree.1 

This  passage,  together  with  his  famous  sayings :  "  Commun- 
ism is  inequality  "  ;  "  Communism  is  oppression  and  slavery  "  ; 
"  Property  is  the  exploitation  of  the  weak  by  the  strong,  com- 
munism is  the  exploitation  of  the  strong  by  the  weak,"  furnish 
sufficient  documentary  evidence  upon  the  question.  Proudhon 
regarded  the  rise  of  socialistic  and  communistic  opinions  as  an 
added  sign  that  the  times  were  out  of  joint.  Writers  of  that 
school  make  a  diagnosis  of  the  social  disease  very  similar  to 
his  own,  but  when  it  comes  to  the  application  of  the  remedy 
Proudhon  differs  from  them  in  most  essential  particulars. 

Proudhon  believed  that  if  the  state  in  all  its  departments 
were  abolished,  if  authority  were  eradicated  from  society,  and 
if  the  principle  of  laissez  faire  were  made  universal  in  its 
operation,  every  form  of  social  ill  would  disappear.  According 
to  his  view  men  are  wicked  and  ignorant  because,  either 
directly  or  indirectly,  they  have  been  forced  to  be  so :  it  is 
because  they  have  been  subjected  to  the  will  of  another,  or  are 
able  to  transfer  the  evil  results  of  their  acts  to  another.  If 
the  individual,  after  reaching  the  age  of  discretion,  could  be 
freed  from  repression  and  compulsion  in  every  form,  and  know 
that  he  alone  is  responsible  for  his  acts  and  must  bear  their 
consequences,  he  would  become  thrifty,  prudent,  energetic  ;  in 
short  he  would  always  see  and  follow  his  highest  interests. 
He  would  always  respect  the  rights  of  others ;  that  is,  act 
justly.  Such  individuals  could  carry  on  all  the  great  industrial 
enterprises  of  to-day  either  separately  or  by  voluntary  associa- 
tion. No  compulsion,  however,  could  be  used  to  force  one  to 
fulfil  a  contract  or  remain  in  an  association  longer  than  his 


1  What  is  Property?  trans,  p.  259. 


No.  i.] 


SCIENTIFIC  ANARCHISM. 


13 


interest  dictated.  Thus  we  should  have  a  perfectly  free  play 
of  enlightened  self-interests :  equitable  competition,  the  only 
natural  form  of  social  organization.  The  dream  which  had 
floated  before  the  mind  of  the  economist  of  the  Manchester 
school  would  be  realized. 

Among  the  different  forms  of  monopoly  which  afflict  society 
at  present,  Proudhon  considered  the  money  monopoly  to  be 
fraught  with  the  greatest  evil.1  By  this  he  meant,  in  the  first 
place,  the  selection  of  two  commodities,  gold  and  silver,  from 
among  all  the  rest,  to  be  the  standard  of  value  and  the  inter- 
mediaries in  all  exchanges.  This  gave  them  sovereign  power, 
established  as  it  were  the  monarchical  regime  among  com- 
modities ;  for  he  who  possesses  money,  the  universal  repre- 
sentative of  value,  can  command  wealth  in  all  its  forms.  To 
metallic  money,  in  course  of  time,  the  idea  and  forms  of  credit 
were  added.  This  greatly  facilitated  exchange  and  made  more 
convenient  the  form  of  the  circulating  medium.  But  the  issue 
of  paper,  as  well  as  of  metal  money,  was  made  a  monopoly, 
in  the  hands  either  of  the  government,  or  of  bankers  designated 
by  the  government.  In  all  the  more  important  business  opera- 
tions paper  has  taken  the  place  of  metal,  and  property  may 
now  almost  be  said  to  exist  in  the  form  of  credit  documents. 
Those  who  issue  and  deal  in  these  virtually  control  the  rate 
of  interest  and,  through  that,  rent  and  prices.  Proudhon  con- 
demned usury  as  strongly  as  did  Aristotle  or  the  mediaeval 
theologians.  To  him  it  was  the^-direct  result  of  monopoly,  and 
the  taking  of  it,  theft.  Its  percentage  indicated  the  rapidity 
with  which  the  borrower  was  being  expropriated.  According 
to  his  view,  if  usury  or  interest  could  be  abolished,  monopoly 
in  every  other  form  would  fall  with  it.  Rent  and  profits,  con- 
sidered as  the  return  which  the  proprietor  can  exact  by  virtue 
of  his  position  as  monopolist  of  land  and  of  the  instruments  of 
production,  would  disappear,  and  wages  or  reward  for  actual 
service  would  alone  remain.    In  one  of  his  brochures?  written 

1  Proudhon's  theory  of  money  and  credit  may  be  found  in  the  sixth  volume  of  his 
Complete  Works,  and  in  the  second  volume  of  his  Economic  Contradictions. 

2  Organization  du  Credit  et  de  la  Circulation,  CEuvres  completes,  tome  6,  pp. 
89-131. 


14  POLITICAL  SCIENCE  QUARTERLY.         [Vol.  IV. 

during  the  excitement  of  the  revolution  of  1848,  Proudhon 
recommended  that  the  state  should  take  the  initiative  and,  first, 
reduce  incomes  by  a  progressive  scale,  increasing  the  percent- 
age of  reduction  with  the  size  of  the  income.  Then  prices 
should  be  lowered  to  an  equivalent  degree.  This  should  be 
followed  by  a  corresponding  reduction  of  taxation.  By  these 
measures  the  industrial  equilibrium  would  be  maintained, 
hoarded  capital  would  be  brought  out,  and  general  prosperity 
would  ensue.  He  thought,  however,  that  in  order  to  help  the 
peasantry  and  prevent  their  migrating  to  the  cities  this  policy 
should  not  be  applied  to  agriculture.  Proudhon  did  not  attempt 
to  justify  such  wholesale  confiscation  of  incomes  by  the  state, 
but  said  that  it  was  necessary  to  resort  to  it  preparatory  to  the 
organization  of  credit. 

This  suggests  the  most  important  feature  of  Proudhon's 
scheme  of  social  reform.  His  idea  was  that  in  the  perfect 
social  state  services  should  exchange  for  services,  products  for 
products.  To  this  end  money  must  be  abolished;  for  so  long 
as  products  and  services  are  exchanged  for  it,  discount,  interest, 
and  other  forms  of  tribute  to  monopoly  must  be  paid.  As  a  sub- 
stitute for  money  he  would  "  generalize  the  bill  of  exchange." 

Now  the  whole  problem  of  circulation  consists  in  generalizing  the 
bill  of  exchange ;  that  is  to  say,  in  making  of  it  an  anonymous  title,  ex- 
changeable forever,  and  redeemable  at  sight,  but  only  in  merchandise 
and  services.1 

In  other  words,  using  the  language  now  current  in  the  money 
market,  he  would  base  bank  paper  upon  products.  By  means 
of  the  bill  of  exchange  he  would  mobilize  all  products,  make  all 
as  readily  exchangeable  as  money  is  now.  It  was  this  which 
Proudhon  in  company  with  Coignet  tried  to  do  in  Paris  by 
means  of  their  banque  d ' ecJiange  or  banque  du  peuple,  established 
there  in  1848.2    Its  operations  however  were  soon  brought  to 

1  CEuvres  completes,  tome  6,  pp.  114  et  seq. 

2  The  theory  was  first  stated  by  one  Fulerand-Mozel  in  181 8.  He  founded  such  an 
institution  at  Paris  in  1829,  and  another  at  Marseilles  in  1832.  In  1848,  John  Gray, 
a  Scotchman,  tried  to  carry  the  same  theory  into  practice  in  Edinburgh,  and  published 
a  book  upon  it,  entitled  Lectures  on  the  Nature  and  Use  of  Money,  Edinburgh,  1848. 

See  Courcelle-Seneuil,  Traite  des  Operations  de  Banque,  pp.  41 1  et  seq.  Also,  by 
the  same  author,  Liberte  et  Socialisme,  pp.  \oo  et  seq. 


No.  i.] 


SCIENTIFIC  ANARCHISM. 


an  end  by  the  exile  of  its  founder.  Let  us  see  what  results 
Proudhon  hoped  would  follow  from  his  plan,  if  it  could  have 
been  carried  into  successful  execution. 

"In  obedience  to  the  summons  of  the  government,  and  by 
simple  authentic  declaration,"  as  many  producers  from  every 
department  of  industry  as  could  be  induced  to  do  so,  should 
unite,  draw  up  articles  of  agreement  and  promise  to  abide  by 
them.  They  would  in  this  way  organize  the  bank.  Every  sub- 
scriber should  keep  an  open  account  at  the  institution  and  bind 
himself  to  receive  its  notes  at  par  in  all  payments  whatsoever. 
The  bank  would  thus  do  the  ordinary  business  of  deposit  and 
issue.  "  Provisionally  and  by  way  of  transition,  gold  and  silver 
coin  will  be  received  in  exchange  for  the  paper  of  the  bank,  and 
at  their  nominal  value."  But  as  the  new  institution  should 
grow  in  popular  favor  and  become  universal,  gold  and  silver 
would  go  out  of  use  as  the  exclusive  bases  of  currency.  They 
would  be  estimated  solely  as  commodities. 

What  reason  had  Proudhon  for  believing  that  his  bank,  if 
put  into  open  competition  with  moneyed  institutions  as  they 
now  exist,  unsupported  by  the  state,  would  out-compete  them 
all,  force  them  to  close  or  to  change  their  method  of  doing  busi- 
ness and,  finally,  entirely  reorganize  society  ?  It  was  this  :  the 
bank  would  charge  no  interest  or  discount  on  loans  and  would 
pay  none  on  deposits.  Nothing  whatever  would  be  taken  or 
received  for  the  use  of  capital.  The  only  charge  made  by  the 
bank  would  be  enough  to  pay^its  running  or  office  expenses. 
These  would  never  amount  to  more  than  one  per  cent  and 
probably  could  be  reduced  as  low  as  one-half  of  one  per  cent. 
"Services  should  exchange  for  services,  products  for  products." 
Reciprocity  is  the  principle  at  the  basis  of  the  plan.  The  fact 
that  no  interest  was  charged  would  attract  borrowers  from  the 
other  banks  and  thereby  force  capitalists  to  place  their  funds 
with  the  new  bank. 

But  this  plan  may  be  viewed  from  another  standpoint,  which 
will  give  it  a  familiar  look  to  those  who  are  acquainted  with  the 
most  advanced  socialistic  schemes.  If  producers  living  at  differ- 
ent places  could  know  at  the  same  time  their  mutual  needs, 


i6 


POLITICAL  SCIENCE  QUARTERLY. 


[Vol.  IV. 


they  could  exchange  their  products  without  the  use  of  money. 
The  bank  could  furnish  that  knowledge  and  so  bring  producers 
and  consumers  together.  What  it  could  do  for  one  community, 
a  network  of  banks  could  do  for  a  nation  or  for  the  civilized 
world.  This  could  be  effected  without  the  interposition  of  a 
government.  The  bank  need  not  even  own  warehouses  or 
magazines  for  the  storing  of  commodities.  The  producer  could, 
while  keeping  possession  of  his  product,  consign  it  to  the  bank 
by  means  of  a  bill  of  lading,  bill  of  exchange,  etc.  He  would 
receive  in  return  notes  of  the  bank  equal  to  the  value  of  his 
consignment,  minus  a  proportional  share  of  the  cost  of  running 
the  establishment.  With  these  he  could  purchase  of  other  pro- 
ducers, made  known  to  him  if  necessary  by  the  bank,  such  com- 
modities as  he  desired.  Meantime  the  bank  would  find  for  him 
and  all  others  who  had  dealings  with  it  purchasers  of  their 
goods.  Thus  supply  would  be  adapted  to  demand ;  over-pro- 
duction and  crises  would  be  prevented.  Every  one  would  be 
assured  of  a  market  for  whatever  product  or  obligation  he  might 
possess,  through  the  general  intermediary,  the  bank.  The  bank 
would  deal  in  credit  documents,  notes,  mortgages,  etc.,  if  prop- 
erly indorsed  and  secured. 

It  will  be  seen  at  once  that,  if  this  form  of  exchange  should 
become  universal,  rent,  profits,  interest,  every  form  of  proprie- 
tary and  capitalistic  expropriation  would  disappear.  The  bank, 
if  it  ever  became  strong  enough,  would  fix  the  reward  for  the 
use  of  property  of  all  kinds  and  for  effecting  exchanges.  The 
former  would  be  nil,  and  the  latter,  as  we  have  seen,  would  be 
less  than  one  per  cent.  For  example,  Proudhon  argued,1  while 
the  process  of  transition  was  going  on,  capital  would  flow  toward 
city  lots  and  buildings  and  reduce  their  rents  till  the  conditions 
prevailing  in  "  laborers'  cities "  should  become  approximately 
universal.  Rents  would  only  yield  enough  to  make  good  the 
capital  spent  in  building,  repairs  and  taxes.  Finally,  the  com- 
mune could  decree  the  abolition  of  rent  by  providing  that  after 
a  certain  time  all  payments  should  be  carried  to  the  account  of 
the  property,  which  itself  should  be  valued  at  twenty-five  times 

1  CEuvres  completes,  tome  io,  p.  203. 


No.  i.] 


SCIENTIFIC  ANARCHISM. 


17 


the  yearly  rent.  When  the  payments  had  been  made  in  full, 
the  commune  could  give  to  the  occupiers  a  title  to  perpetual 
domicile,  provided  they  kept  the  property  in  as  good  condition 
as  it  was  when  the  grant  was  made.  Proprietors  need  not  be 
disturbed  in  the  occupancy  of  their  own  estates  till  they  pleased. 
All  changes,  after  the  first  mentioned  above,  must  be  made  by 
contract  between  -citizens,  and  the  execution  of  the  contracts 
should  be  intrusted  to  the  commune.  In  this  way  Proudhon 
would  ultimately  extend  the  capitalization  of  rent  through  the 
agricultural  districts  of  the  nation  and  everywhere  transform 
proprietorship  into  possession.  He  claimed  that  the  saving  of 
wealth  made  possible  by  the  abolition  of  interest  would  be  so 
great,  and  the  stimulus  thereby  given  to  production  so  strong, 
that  all  public  and  private  debts  could  be  quickly  paid  off,  taxa- 
tion reduced  and  finally  abolished.  The  expense  of  administer- 
ing government  would  be  correspondingly  lessened.  But  with 
the  permanent  and  abounding  prosperity  which  would  be  felt 
by  all  classes  in  the  nation,  poverty,  the  cause  of  crime,  would 
gradually  disappear.  Courts  and  police  administration  would 
then  be  no  longer  necessary.  Finally,  as  the  new  system  ex- 
tended among  the  nations,  their  internal  well-being  would  so 
increase  that  wars  would  be  no  longer  necessary.  Hence  the 
army  and  the  navy  could  be  dispensed  with  and  diplomacy  would 
become  a  lost  art.  By  this  process  of  development  the  depart- 
ments of  finance,  of  justice,  of  police,  and  of  foreign  affairs  would 
disappear.  There  would  be  no ^rnore  use  for  them.  The  state 
itself  then  would  be  thrown  aside  like  an  old  and  worn-out  gar- 
ment, and  society  would  enter  upon  a  new  period  of  existence, 
the  period  of  liberty  and  of  perfect  justice.  This  is  what  Prou- 
dhon thought  could  be  accomplished  through  the  organization  of 
credit.  Then  the  perfect  individual  described  above  would  need 
only  freedom  and  the  equality  of  conditions  insured  by  freedom 
to  reach  the  highest  development  of  all  his  powers.  Such  is 
the  anarchistic  ideal.  Proudhon  has  repeatedly  set  it  forth.  I 
quote  one  of  the  passages  : 

Capitalistic  and  proprietary  exploitation  everywhere  stopped,  the  giving 
and  receiving  of  wages  in  its  present  form  abolished,  exchange  equal  and 


iS 


POLITICAL  SCIENCE  QUARTERLY  [Vol.  IV. 


really  guaranteed,  value  constituted,  a  market  assured,  the  principle  of 
protection  changed,  the  markets  of  the  globe  opened  to  the  producers 
of  all  countries  j  consequently  the  barriers  broken  down,  old  international 
law  replaced  by  commercial  conventions,  police,  justice,  administration 
put  everywhere  into  the  hands  of  those  engaged  in  industry ;  economic 
organization  taking  the  place  of  the  governmental  and  military  regime  in 
the  colonies  as  well  as  the  mother  countries ;  finally  the  free  and  uni- 
versal commingling  of  races  under  the  sole  law  of  contract ;  that  is  the 
revolution.1 

II.    The  Individualistic  Anarcliists. 

Proudhon's  theory  is  the  sum  and  substance  of  scientific 
anarchism.  How  closely  have  the  American  anarchists  adhered 
to  the  teachings  of  their  master  ? 

One  group,  with  its  centre  at  Boston  and  with  branch  asso- 
ciations in  a  few  other  cities,  is  composed  of  faithful  disciples  of 
Proudhon.  They  believe  that  he  is  the  leading  thinker  among 
those  who  have  found  the  source  of  evil  in  society  and  the 
remedy  therefor.  They  accept  his  analysis  of  social  phenomena 
and  follow  his  lead  generally,  though  not  implicitly.  They  call 
themselves  Individualistic  Anarchists,  and  claim  to  be  the  only 
class  who  are  entitled  to  that  name.  They  do  not  attempt  to 
organize  very  much,  but  rely  upon  "active  individuals,  working 
here  and  there  all  over  the  country."  2  It  is  supposed  that  they 
may  number  in  all  some  five  thousand  adherents  in  the  United 
States.  But  they  measure  their  strength  by  the  tendency 
towards  greater  liberty  which  exists  in  society.  The  progress 
of  liberty  everywhere  and  in  all  departments  of  social  life  they 
welcome  as  an  added  pledge  of  the  future  realization  of  their 
ideal.  So  they  would  reckon  the  nominal  adherents  of  anarch- 
ism, the  potential  anarchists,  by  the  hundreds  of  thousands. 
Their  views  and  plans  are  deductions  from  the  theory  of  Prou- 
dhon. They  are  a  commentary  on  his  works,  an  extension  and 
occasionally  a  clarifying  of  his  thought.    It  will  be  necessary, 

1  Idee  generale  de  la  Revolution,  p.  297.  In  Justice  dans  la  Revolution,  tome  2, 
pp.  99-134,  may  be  found  one  of  the  best  statements  of  Proudhon's  views  of  the  future 
system  of  industrial  and  political  federation,  and  of  the  method  of  transition  to  it. 

2  Letter  from  Benj.  R.  Tucker,  at  present  the  leader  of  the  Boston  anarchists. 


No.  I.]  SCIENTIFIC  ANARCHISM.  jg 

however,  to  explain  more  precisely  the  attitude  of  the  anarchists 
toward  the  political  and  social  institutions  of  this  country.1 

They,  like  Proudhon,  consider  the  government  of  the  United 
States  to  be  as  oppressive  and  worthless  as  any  of  the  European 
monarchies.  Liberty  prevails  here  no  more  than  there.  In 
some  respects  the  system  of  majority  rule  is  more  obnoxious 
than  that  of  monarchy.  It  is  quite  as  tyrannical,  and  in  a 
republic  it  is  more  difficult  to  reach  the  source  of  the  despotism 
and  remove  it.  They  regard  the  entire  machinery  of  elections 
as  worthless  and  a  hindrance  to  prosperity.  They  are  opposed 
to  political  machines  of  all  kinds.  They  never  vote  or  perform 
the  duties  of  citizens  in  any  way,  if  it  can  be  avoided.  They 
would  not  pay  taxes,  if  there  were  any  means  of  escaping  it. 
Judges  are  regarded  by  them  as  the  hirelings  of  power,  and 
courts  as  centres  of  despotism.  They  regard  the  proceedings 
of  legislative  assemblies  as  vain  and  worthy  only  of  contempt. 
They  would  destroy  all  statute  books  and  judicial  decisions. 
Josiah  Warren  stated  the  principle2  that,  in  the  case  of  the 
infliction  of  injury  by  one  individual  upon  another,  the  govern- 
ment might,  with  the  consent  of  the  injured  person,  interfere 
and  cause  reparation  to  be  made.  But  the  penalty  imposed 
upon  the  offender  should  never  exceed  in  amount  the  damage 
which  he  had  done.  In  accordance  with  this,  the  anarchists 
contemplate  for  a  time  at  least  the  maintenance  of  a  mild 
system  of  penal  law,  and  with  it  trial  by  jury,  though  they  do 
not  believe  in  compulsory  jury  service.  As  long  as  there  are 
individuals  so  imperfect  that  they  insist  upon  infringing  their 
neighbor's  rights,  they  must  be  restrained. 

The  anarchists  have  no  words  strong  enough  to  express  their 
disgust  at  the  scheming  of  the  politician,  the  bidding  for  votes, 
the  studied  misrepresentation  of  facts,  the  avoidance  of  serious 
issues,  and  all  the  forms  of  corruption  which  stain  our  political 
life.    Our  municipal  governments  furnish  them  unlimited  mate- 

1  The  following  statements  are  taken  directly  from  the  columns  of  Liberty,  the 
paper  published  by  the  Boston  anarchists;  from  Lysander  Spooner's  Letter  to  Grover 
Cleveland;  William  B.  Greene's  pamphlet  on  Mutual  Banking  ;  Bakunine's  God  and 
the  State,  and  other  books  and  documents  recognized  by  the  anarchists  as  authorita- 
tive. 2  True  Civilization,  p.  12. 


20 


POLITICAL  SCIENCE  QUARTERLY.  [Vol.  IV 


rial  for  comment.  They  call  attention  to  the  immense  labor 
which  it  takes  to  keep  the  political  machinery  in  motion,  and 
compare  with  it  the  little  which  is  accomplished  towards  the 
solution  of  the  really  important  social  problems.  No  good,  only 
evil,  can  be  done  by  such  methods.  The  influence  of  money 
in  politics,  the  wanton  disregard  of  law  by  corporations  and 
the  inability  of  our  legislators  and  executives  to  restrain  them, 
the  self-seeking  which  enters  into  all  political  contests  and  the 
genera]  lack  of  earnestness  which  characterizes  them  are  to  the 
anarchist  proofs  that  the  state  is  decaying  and  will  soon  fall 
to  pieces  at  a  touch.  It  is  of  no  use,  they  say,  to  labor  for  any 
of  the  plans  of  reform  which  are  now  agitating  parties.  The 
state  is  too  corrupt  to  be  reformed :  abolish  it  altogether.1 

Concerning  the  family  relation,  the  anarchists  believe  that 
civil  marriage  should  be  abolished  and  "autonomistic  "  marriage 
substituted.  This  means  that  the  contracting  parties  should 
agree  to  live  together  as  long  as  it  seems  best  to  do  so,  and 
that  the  partnership  should  be  dissolved  whenever  either  one 
desires  it.  Still,  they  would  give  the  freest  possible  play  to 
love  and  honor  as  restraining  motives.  They  claim  that  ulti- 
mately, by  this  policy,  the  marriage  relation  would  be  purified 
and  made  much  more  permanent  than  it  is  to-day.  They  are 
"  free  lovers,"  but  not  in  the  sense  of  favoring  promiscuity  of 
the  sexes.  They  hope  to  idealize  the  marriage  relation  by 
bringing  it  under  the  regime  of  perfect  liberty.  They  would 
not  restrain  those  who  wish  to  practise  polygamy  or  any  social 
vice.2    They  view  with  abhorrence  all  efforts  to  prevent  by 

1  The  anarchists  believe  that  universal  suffrage  is  a  snare  prepared  to  entrap  the 
unwary.  As  to  the  extension  of  suffrage  to  women,  Lysander  Spooner  wrote :  "  They 
have  just  as  much  right  to  make  laws  as  men  have,  and  no  better;  and  that  is  just  no 
right  at  all."  "  Women  want  to  put  us  all  into  the  legislative  mill  and  grind  us  over 
again  into  some  shape  which  will  suit  their  taste.  Better  burn  all  existing  statutes.'* 
Liberty,  vol.  ii,  no.  22. 

2  Liberty,  vol.  i,  no.  12:  "Liberty  therefore  must  defend  the  right  of  individuals 
to  make  contracts  involving  usury,  rum,  marriage,  prostitution,  and  many  other  things 
which  it  believes  to  be  wrong  in  principle  and  opposed  to  human  well  being."  — 
Some  of  the  anarchists  hold  to  the  monogamic  ideal ;  others  reject  it,  believing  in  what 
they  term  "  variety,"  which  they  distinguish  from  promiscuity  in  the  sense  that  human 
refinement  is  distinct  from  bestial  recklessness.  One  of  the  most  eloquent  pleas  for 
the  monogamic  family  ever  made  is  Proudhon's  Amour  et  Mariage.  He  was  utterly 
opposed  to  divorce.    See  (Euvres  completes,  tome  24. 


No.  i.] 


SCIENTIFIC  ANARCHISM. 


2  I 


legislation  and  through  the  interference  of  the  police  the  traffic 
in  obscene  literature.  This  is  not  because  they  wish  to  uphold 
vice  :  on  the  contrary,  they  desire  the  purification  of  society, 
but  believe  that  it  can  be  brought  about  only  by  the  abandon- 
ment of  every  form  of  compulsion.  Organize  credit,  let  people 
know  that  the  individual  must  endure  all  the  results  of  his  con- 
duct, and  that  he  will  be  held  responsible  for  the  deeds  of  no 
one  else,  and  in  process  of  time  vice  will  disappear.  The  opera- 
tion of  self-interest  will  secure  its  abolition.  In  no  sense  do 
the  anarchists  advocate  community  of  wives.1  They  desire  to 
preserve  the  home  and  to  keep  the  children  in  it,  subject  to 
parental  government,  till  they  reach  such  a  degree  of  maturity 
that  they  can  assume  the  responsibilities  of  life  for  themselves. 
Family  government  should  secure  its  ends  by  reason  and  love, 
rather  than  by  force.  Should  the  parents  separate,  the  young 
children  will  go  with  the  mother.  While  the  children  remain 
in  the  family,  there  would  of  course  be  an  opportunity  for  their 
education ;  but,  after  they  leave  parental  control,  that,  like  every- 
thing else,  would  depend  solely  upon  their  own  choice.  Com- 
pulsory education  is  inconsistent  with  the  anarchistic  system. 

Proudhon,  who  wrote  the  eloquent  prayer  to  the  God  of 
liberty  and  equality  which  concludes  the  first  part  of  What  is 
Property  ?  spurned  the  God  of  the  bible  as  the  chief  antagonist 
of  man  and  foe  of  civilization.2  The  problem  of  human  evil 
drove  him  to  this  conclusion.  He  found  a  fatal  antinomy  be- 
tween God  and  man.  Man's  nature  involves  constant  progress 
and  development,  while  that  of  God  is  fixed  and  unchangeable. 
Therefore  as  man  advances,  God  retrogrades.  Man  was  created 
deformed  rather  than  depraved,  and  a  Providence,  called  all-wise 
and  beneficent,  has  therefore  condemned  him  to  eternal  misery. 
To  Proudhon  such  a  being  possessed  the  worst  qualities  of  man 
intensified  and  expanded  till  they  reached  the  scope  of  deity. 
What  the  state  is  in  politics  and  property  in  economics,  God  is 
in  religion,  a  source  of  inequality,  oppression  and  woe.  The 

1  See  Proudhon's  bitter  condemnation  of  this  in  his  chapter  on  Communism  and 
Population,  Contradictions  economiques,  tome  22,  pp.  258  et  seq. 

2  See  chapter  on  Providence  in  Contradictions  economiques,  tome  1,  pp.  351  et  seq. 


22  POLITICAL  SCIENCE  QUARTERLY,  [Vol.  IV. 

idea  of  authority  originates  in  the  conception  of  God ;  there- 
fore, as  Bakunine  said  :  "  If  God  existed,  it  would  be  necessary 
to  abolish  him."1  "Who  denies  his  king,  denies  his  God," 
said  Proudhon.  Yet,  though  the  anarchists  believe  that  the 
church  is  one  of  the  bulwarks  of  the  state  and  that  its  spirit  is 
essentially  hierarchical,  they  uphold  the  doctrine  of  absolute 
religious  freedom.  Those  who  choose  to  believe  in  religion  and 
to  worship  the  Christian  God,  or  any  other  divinity,  should  be 
permitted  to  do  so  without  molestation.  But  every  form  of 
worship  should  be  self-supporting.  "  Let  the  hearer  pay  the 
priest."  If  religion  is  of  any  value,  let  it  be  shown  in  open 
and  free  competition  with  all  other  forms  of  belief.2  The 
anarchists  of  to-day  are  wholly  atheistic,  and  will  probably 
remain  so,  however  much  their  number  may  be  increased. 

It  thus  appears  that  the  anarchists  have  a  programme  which 
is  as  simple  as  it  is  sweeping.  To  every  social  question  they 
answer  laissez  faire,  laissez  passer.  Throw  off  all  artificial 
restraint.  Leave  men  to  themselves.  Liberty  is  the  great, 
the  only  educator.  Every  question  will  solve  itself  by  the 
operation  of  natural  laws.  All  that  is  needed  is  equality  of 
conditions.  They  are  anti-monopolists  pure  and  simple.  Re- 
ferring to  the  contest  for  the  abolition  of  slavery,  they  compare 
themselves  to  the  abolitionists  proper  3  and  constitutional  repub- 
licans to  the  colonizationists.  The  latter  are  constantly  apply- 
ing palliatives  ;  there  is  but  one  remedy,  and  that  is  the  destruc- 
tion of  inequality  at  the  source.  Therefore  the  anarchists  who 
are  strictly  logical,  while  they  sympathize  with  all  criticism 
unfavorable  to  existing  institutions  as  tending  to  weaken  confi- 
dence in  the  state,  refuse  to  co-operate  with  any  party  of  social 
or  political  reformers.4  They  believe  that  there  is  no  positive 
power  for  good  in  association ;  therefore  co-operative  schemes 

1  God  and  the  State,  trans,  p.  17. 

2  Idee  generate  de  la  Revolution,  p.  261. 

3  Any  standard  history  of  the  anti-slavery  conflict,  or  the  files  of  the  Liberator, 
will  show  the  close  connection  between  the  doctrines  of  the  Garrisonian  wing  of  the 
abolitionists  after  about  1840  and  those  of  the  anarchists.  The  appeals  of  the  aboli- 
tionists to  "  the  higher  law  "  were  decidedly  anarchistic 

4  See  discussion  carried  on  in  Liberty,  vol.  iv,  1886  and  1887,  between  Tucker 
and  Henry  Appleton. 


No.  i.] 


SCIENTIFIC  ANARCHISM. 


have  no  attraction  for  them.  Attempts  to  deal  with  men  in 
the  mass,  to  educate  them  by  united  effort,  do  not  awaken  their 
confidence. 

I  do  not  admit  [says  Tucker]  anything  except  the  existence  of  the 
individual  as  the  condition  of  his  sovereignty.  .  .  .  Anarchy  has  no 
side  that  is  affirmative  in  the  sense  of  constructive.  Neither  as  anar- 
chists nor  as  individual  sovereigns  have  we  any  constructive  work  to  do, 
though  as  progressive  beings  we  have  plenty  of  it. 

Again : 

History  shows  that  liberty  results  in  more  perfect  men,  and  that 
greater  human  perfection  in  turn  makes  increased  liberty  possible.  It 
is  a  process  of  growth  through  action  and  reaction,  and  it  is  impossible 
to  state  which  is  antecedent  and  which  consequent.  But  the  action  of 
propagandism  is  more  effective  when  brought  to  bear  upon  institutions 
and  conditions,  than  when  aimed  immediately  at  human  nature.  So  we 
do  not  preach  the  gospel  of  goodness,  but  teach  the  laws  of  social  life. 

It  naturally  follows, "from  what  has  been  said,  that  the  anar- 
chists who  fully  accept  the  doctrines  of  Proudhon  believe  that 
a  long  process  of  evolution  is  necessary  before  their  programme 
can  be  put  into  successful  operation.  They  are  opposed  to  the 
use  of  violence : 

But  one  thing  can  justify  its  exercise  on  any  large  scale,  viz.  the 
denial  of  free  thought,  free  speech  and  a  free  press.  Even  then  its 
exercise  would  be  unwise,  unless  repression  were  enforced  so  stringently 
that  all  other  means  of  throwing  it  off  had  become  hopeless.  Blood- 
shed in  itself  is  pure  loss.  When  we  must  have  freedom  of  agitation, 
and  when  nothing  but  bloodshed  will  secure  it,  then  bloodshed  is  wise. 
But  it  must  be  remembered  that  it  can  never  accomplish  the  social 
revolution;  that  that  can  never  be  accomplished  except  by  means  of 
agitation,  investigation,  experiment  and  passive  resistance ;  and  that, 
after  all  the  bloodshed,  we  shall  be  exactly  where  we  were  before,  except 
in  our  possession  of  the  power  to  use  these  means.  .  .  .  The  day  of 
armed  revolution  is  gone  by.    It  is  too  easily  put  down.1 

Again  : 

What  we  mean  by  the  abolition  of  the  state  is  the  abolition  of  a  false 
philosophy,  or  rather  the  overthrow  of  a  gigantic  fraud,  under  which 

1  Liberty,  vol.  iv,  no.  3,  May  22,  1886,  editorial  suggested  by  the  bomb-throwing 
at  Chicago. 


24 


POLITICAL  SCIENCE  QUARTERLY. 


[Vol.  IV. 


people  consent  to  be  coerced  and  restrained  from  minding  their  own 
business.  The  philosophy  of  liberty  can  be  applied  everywhere  ;  and  he 
who  successfully  applies  it  in  his  family,  in  the  place  of  avenging  gods, 
arbitrary  codes,  threats,  commands  and  whips,  may  easily  have  the  sat- 
isfaction of  abolishing  at  least  one  state.  When  we  have  substituted  our 
philosophy  in  place  of  the  old,  then  the  palaces,  cathedrals  and  arsenals 
will  naturally  fall  to  pieces  through  neglect  and  the  rust  that  is  seen  to 
corrupt  tenantless  and  obsolete  structures.1 

Or,  stating  the  anarchistic  programme  a  little  more  definitely, 
it  is  expected  that  political  corruption  and  capitalistic  tyranny, 
coupled  with  revolutionary  agitation,  will  after  a  time  so  under- 
mine respect  for  law  and  confidence  in  government  that  it  will 
be  possible  for  a  small  but  determined  body  of  anarchists  to 
nullify  law  by  passive  resistance.  When  the  experiment  has 
once  been  successfully  tried,  the  masses  of  men,  tired  of  the 
old  system,  will  accept  the  new  as  a  welcome  deliverance. 
Then  it  will  no  longer  be  possible  to  enforce  obedience  to  law. 
People  will  meet  in  conventions,  organize  upon  the  principle  of 
voluntary  associations,  and  choose  their  natural  leaders.2  These 
leaders  however  can  exercise  no  authority,  but  only  use  persua- 
sion and  advice  coming  from  a  wider  practical  experience. 
Those  who  do  not  wish  to  follow,  may  go  their  own  way.  Each 
individual  can  take  possession  of  and  use  what  property  in  land 
and  raw  materials  he  needs,  but  he  must  not  thereby  infringe 
the  equivalent  right  of  every  other  person.  Property,  thus, 
must  be  so  used  as  to  contribute  to  the  highest  social  weal. 
Human  nature  will  be  so  purified  from  gross  selfishness  that 
it  is  believed  that  the  system  of  private  property  can  be  pre- 
served formally  intact.  All  the  functions  of  social  life,  now 
classed  as  public  and  private,  will  be  performed  by  individuals, 
either  singly  or  in  voluntary  association.  The  system  of  mutual 
banking  will  be  established,  or,  as  the  American  anarchists 
express  it,  each  man  will  be  allowed  to  issue  his  own  notes, 
based  upon  such  property  or  security  as  he  may  command,  and 
make  them  circulate  as  far  as  he  is  able.3    In  banking,  in  carry- 

1  Liberty,  vol.  i,  no.  19. 

2  See  a  description  of  this  process  in  Liberty,  vol.  i,  no.  5. 

3  See  Spooner's  Letter  to  Grover  Cleveland. 


No.  i.] 


SCIENTIFIC  ANARCHISM. 


25 


ing  of  the  mail,  in  railway  and  telegraph  business,  as  in  every- 
thing else,  the  fittest  institutions  and  companies  will  survive. 
These  results  —  the  banishment  of  crime,  the  elimination  of 
poverty,  prosperity  so  great  and  generally  diffused  that  the 
spectre  which  Malthus  raised  will  never  return  to  affright 
society,  perfect  solidarity  combined  with  perfect  individuality, 
the  true  harmony  of  interests,  the  reign  of  righteousness,  the 
golden  age,  the  millennium  — will  be  realized  and  made  perma- 
nent, not  by  multiplying  the  bonds  which  unite  society,  not  by 
increasing  administrative  machinery  and  strengthening  the  ten- 
dencies toward  centralization,  as  the  socialists  propose,  but  by 
perfect  decentralization,  by  destroying  all  political  bonds  and 
leaving  only  the  individual,  animated  and  guided  by  intelligent 
egoism.  In  a  society  thus  regenerated  the  anarchists  expect 
that  their  system  of  agitation  will  culminate. 

III.    The  Communistic  Anarchists. 

The  Individualistic  Anarchists  accordingly  profess  to  have 
very  little  in  common  with  the  Internationalists.  The  latter  are 
Communistic  Anarchists.  They  borrow  their  analysis  of  ex- 
isting social  conditions  from  Marx,  or  more  accurately  from  the 
" communistic  manifesto"  issued  by  Marx  and  Engels  in  1847.1 
In  the  old  International  Workingman's  association  they  con- 
stituted the  left  wing,  which,  with  its  leader,  Bakunine,  was 
expelled  in  1872.  Later  the  followers  of  Marx,  the  socialists 
proper,  disbanded,  and  since  ^1883  the  International  in  this 
country  has  been  controlled  wholly  by  the  anarchists.2  Their 
views  and  methods  are  similar  to  those  which  Bakunine  wished 
to  carry  out  by  means  of  his  Universal  Alliance,  and  which 
exist  more  or  less  definitely  in  the  minds  of  Russian  Nihilists. 
Like  Bakunine,  they  desire  to  organize  an  international  revolu- 
tionary movement  of  the  laboring  classes,  to  maintain  it  by 
means  of  conspiracy  and,  as  soon  as  possible,  to  bring  about  a 

1  In  Freiheit  the  manifesto  is  constantly  referred  to  as  of  the  first  importance. 

2  See  proceedings  of  Pittsburg  Congress,  1883,  and  the  manifesto  there  issued 
in  Freiheit,  Oct.  22  and  27,  1883.  Also  Ely's  Labor  Movement  in  America,  p.  228, 
and  appendix. 


26 


POLITICAL  SCIENCE  QUARTERLY.         [Vol.  IV. 


general  insurrection.  In  this  way,  with  the  help  of  explosives, 
poisons  and  murderous  weapons  of  all  kinds,  they  hope  to  de- 
stroy all  existing  institutions,  ecclesiastical,  civil  and  economic. 
Upon  the  smoking  ruins  they  will  erect  the  new  and  perfect 
society.1  Only  a  few  weeks  or  months  will  be  necessary  to 
make  the  transition.  During  that  time  the  laborers  will  take 
possession  of  all  lands,  buildings,  instruments  of  production 
and  distribution.  With  these  in  their  possession,  and  without 
the  interposition  of  government,  they  will  organize  into  associa- 
tions or  groups  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  on  the  work  of 
society.  To  Krapotkine  and  the  continental  anarchists  the 
commune  appears  best  suited  to  become  the  centre  of  organiza- 
tion. The  idea  of  the  Russian  mir,  or  of  the  primitive  village 
community,  is  also  very  attractive  to  them.  They  would  carry 
the  principle  of  local  self-government  to  an  extreme.  They 
would  have  no  centralized  control  beyond  that  pertaining  to  the 
village  or  city,  and,  within  that,  the  actual  exercise  of  authority 
should  be  restricted  as  far  as  possible.  A  member,  if  dis- 
satisfied, would  be  allowed  to  retire  at  any  time  and  join  another 
commune.  The  members  of  the  commune  would  jointly  con- 
trol all  its  property  and  business.  Perfect  community  of  rela- 
tions would  exist  within  each  group.  The  spirit  of  enterprise 
would  be  kept  up  by  competition  between  the  communes  or  asso- 
ciations. The  larger  ones  would  contain  within  themselves 
productive  groups  enough  for  the  satisfaction  of  nearly  all  the 
needs  of  their  inhabitants.  Where  such  should  not  be  the  case, 
commodities  could  be  obtained  by  inter-communal  traffic.  The 
industrial  bonds  thus  established  would  prevent  strife  and  war. 
Thus  universal  peace  would  prevail  after  the  final  catastrophe 
of  revolution  was  passed,  and  by  no  possibility  could  the  state, 

1  For  full  details  as  to  the  "propaganda  of  deed,"  see  the  files  of  Most's  Freiheit ; 
the  Chicago  Alarm  and  Arbeiter-Zeitung ;  and  Most's  Science  of  Revolutionary  War- 
fare, an  outline  of  which  was  printed  as  a  part  of  the  testimony  in  the  Anarchists' 
case  at  Chicago.  The  testimony  in  that  case  is  given  in  outline  in  Northeastern 
Reporter,  vol.  12.  The  speeches  of  the  anarchists  and  a  history  of  the  trial  (favor- 
able to  the  condemned)  has  been  issued  by  the  Socialistic  Publishing  Society  of 
Chicago.  —  In  book  form,  the  most  important  statement  of  the  programme  of  the 
Communistic  Anarchists  is  Krapotkine's  Paroles  d'un  Revolte,  Paris,  1885.  See  a^so 
Ely's  Labor  Movement  in  America,  and  Laveleye's  Socialisme  contemporaine. 


No.  i.] 


SCIENTIFIC  ANARCHISM. 


27 


the  system  of  force,  revive.  This  is  the  ideal  of  the  Com- 
munistic Anarchists.1  It  is  the  system  of  economic  federalism : 
the  substitution  of  the  free  competition  of  local  groups,  holding 
property  in  common,  for  the  complex  social  order  which  now 
exists.  Within  this  social  order,  nations  and  national  hate  will 
no  longer  exist ;  a  purely  economic  regime  will  take  their  place 
and  make  political  struggle  impossible.  It  is  claimed  that  this 
is  essentially  different  from  all  the  older  communistic  schemes, 
because  with  the  destruction  of  the  state  and  of  religion  the 
basis  upon  which  authority  could  rest  would  be  entirely  re- 
moved. The  earlier  writers  and  experimenters,  like  Babceuf, 
Cabet,  Owen,  are  called  state  communists,  because  they  pro- 
posed to  establish  their  system  with  the  aid  of  government  or 
under  its  grants  and  protection.  This  later  plan  is  purely  anar- 
chistic. The  earlier  apostles  would  destroy  liberty ;  the  later 
would  preserve  it  in  a  perfect  form,  make  it  consistent  with  a 
stable  society,  and  harmonize  it  with  the  greatest  possible 
equality. 

1  "  We  desire  no  property.  All  that  exists  upon  the  earth  must  serve  for  the  satis- 
faction of  the  needs  of  all.  The  appropriation  of  these  things,  —  of  land,  mines, 
machines,  and  in  general  of  all  instruments  which  contribute  toward  producing  the 
necessities  of  mankind,  which  should  serve  the  community,  and  which  can  be  produced 
only  by  the  co-operative  efforts  of  all  humanity,  —  the  appropriation  of  these  things 
as  the  property  of  individuals  or  of  certain  groups  is  the  retaining  of  them  to  the 
exclusion  of  their  rightful  possessor,  the  community,  it  is  robbery  committed  against 
the  latter.  We  would  see  it  abolished.  If  all  the  instruments  of  production  were 
once  restored  to  the  possession  of  the  community,  then  would  the  latter  by  a  rational 
system  of  organization  care  for  the  satisfaction  of  human  needs,  so  that  all  men  who 
are  able  to  work  could  be  supplied  with  useful  occupation,  and  every  one  could 
secure  the  means  necessary  to  an  existence  worthy  of  a  human  being.  .  .  .  But 
with  private  property  will  disappear  at  once  the  chief  supports  of  all  civil  authority. 
For  only  upon  the  gradation  of  classes  which  private  property  produces  could  that 
instrument  of  popular  oppression,  the  state,  be  erected."    Freiheit,  Oct.  31,  1883. 

"What  we  are  striving  after  is  simply  and  clearly:  t.  The  destruction  of  the 
existing  class  rule,  and  that  by  the  use  of  all  possible  means,  by  energetic,  pitiless, 
international  revolution.  2.  The  establishment  of  a  free  society  based  upon  com- 
munity of  goods.  3.  Associative  organization  of  production.  4.  Free  exchange  of 
products  of  equal  value  by  the  productive  associations  themselves,  without  middlemen 
or  profits.  5.  The  organization  of  education  upon  an  altruistic,  scientific,  and  equal 
basis  for  both  sexes.  6.  Regulation  of  all  public  affairs  by  the  free  social  contracts 
of  autonomous  communes  and  associations  resting  upon  a  federalistic  basis." 
Freiheit,  Oct.  13,  1883. 

"  While  communism  will  form  the  basis  of  the  future  society,  anarchy,  absence  of 
government,  is  the  future  form  of  public  organization."    Freiheit,  Dec.  15,  1883. 


28 


POLITICAL  SCIENCE  QUARTERLY.  [Vol.  IV. 


The  difference  between  the  ideals  of  these  two  bodies  of 
anarchists,  when  traced  back  to  its  source,  seems  to  spring 
from  this.  Proudhon,  in  his  search  for  the  root  of  social  evil, 
hit  upon  the  principle  of  authority,  of  monopoly  and  privilege 
supported  by  it  and  indissolubly  connected  with  it.  If  that 
could  be  eradicated,  private  property  would  no  longer  be  fraught 
with  harm  and  might  continue.  That  was  the  order  of  his 
thought.  All  socialists,  however,  from  Rodbertus  and  Marx 
down,  have  considered  private  property  and  competition  to  be 
the  cause  of  poverty  and  the  evil  entailed  thereby.  They  have 
not  gone  back  of  property  and  competition  to  find  the  source  of 
their  perversion  in  the  legal  system  which  sanctions  and  up- 
holds them.  Therefore  the  followers  of  Proudhon  primarily 
attack  the  state  and  proceed  from  that  to  their  criticism  of 
property  right.  On  the  other  hand  the  Communistic  Anar- 
chists direct  their  chief  assaults  against  private  property,  and 
through  those  are  led  to  seek  the  entire  overthrow  of  the  state. 
Proudhon  really  leaves  the  individual  member  of  his  regenerated 
society  with  only  the  right  of  possession,  of  usufruct  conditioned 
upon  his  subordinating  his  interest  to  the  common  weal.  What 
restrictions  this  would  practically  lead  to,  neither  he  nor  any  of 
his  followers,  so  far  as  I  know,  have  ever  shown.1  On  the  other 
hand  the  Internationalists,  though  believing  that  hitherto  force 
has  been  the  instrument  of  all  human  progress,  yet  protest 
that  it  will  be  banished  from  society  when  organized  according 
to  their  ideal.  Absence  of  government,  HerrscJiaftslosigkeit,  is 
their  ideal,  as  well  as  that  of  the  disciples  of  Proudhon.  The 
declaration  of  principles  issued  by  the  International  in  1883 
stated  that  the  economic  functions  of  society  should  be  per- 
formed by  free  associations,  and  that  they  should  also  "by 
free  social  contracts  "  regulate  all  public  affairs.  The  tend- 
ency of  their  writings  seems  to  be  in  substantial  harmony  with 

1  In  an  editorial  in  Liberty,  vol.  i,  no.  3,  are  the  following  statements :  "  We  do 
not  believe  that  any  one  can  stand  alone.  We  do  wish  social  ties  and  guarantees. 
We  wish  all  there  are.  We  believe  in  human  solidarity.  We  believe  that  members 
of  society  are  interdependent.  We  would  preserve  these  interdependencies  untram- 
melled and  inviolate,  but  we  have  faith  in  natural  forces.  The  socialists  wish  a 
manufactured  solidarity,  we  are  satisfied  with  a  solidarity  inherent  in  the  universe." 


No.  i.]  SCIENTIFIC  ANARCHISM.  29 

this.1  The  truth  seems  to  be  that  the  one  party  has  been  led  by 
its  abhorrence  of  authority  to  dilute  its  communism,  while  the 
other,  to  ward  off  the  charge  that  its  theory  leads  to  a  be  Hum 
omnium  contra  omnes,  has  left  the  way  open  for  a  plentiful 
infusion  of  public  spirit  and  humanitarian  motives.  The  result 
is  that,  with  the  perfected  individual  whom  they  both  contem- 
plate, the  ideal  social  states  of  the  two  anarchistic  schools,  if 
ever  realized,  would  be  very  similar.  Both  must  from  the 
necessities  of  the  case  take  largely  the  form  of  voluntary  asso- 
ciation.2 If  on  the  other  hand  the  individual  remained  imper- 
fect, animated  very  often  by  passion,  ambition,  and  the  lower 
forms  of  self-interest,  the  system  of  federalism  would  neces- 
sarily degenerate  into  the  strictest  communism,  while  the  sys- 
tem of  individual  sovereignty  would  plunge  society  into  the 
worst  evils  of  unrestricted  competition.  In  either  case  the 
restoration  of  the  state  in  some  form  would  be  a  necessity. 

Yet,  whatever  may  be  true  of  their  ideals,  the  methods  of 
reaching  them  which  are  advocated  and  practised  by  the  two 
anarchistic,  schools  are  wholly  different.  The  one  expects  to 
attain  success  through  a  long  process  of  peaceful  evolution 
culminating  in  perfect  individualism.  Although  extremely  hos- 
tile to  the  church,  their  programme,  so  far  as  it  concerns  human 
relations,  is  essentially  Christian.3  Christianity  first  posited 
the  individual  as  distinct  from  society,  and  began  the  process 
of  freeing  him  from  the  restraints  of  the  ancient  political  sys- 
tem. The  strongest  .historical  impulse  toward  the  perfection  of 
the  individual  has  come  from  Christianity.  The  Individualistic 
Anarchists  show  its  influence  most  clearly,  for  there  is  a  decided 
tinge  of  Quakerism  in  their  attitude  toward  the  state.4  But 

1  See  various  articles  in  Freiheit,  1885  and  1886,  containing  a  discussion  with  the 
Individualistic  Anarchists.  Also  Krapotkine's  writings,  especially  two  articles  by 
him  in  The  Nineteenth  Century  for  1887. 

2  Proudhon  in  Du  Principe  Federatif,  1863,  stated  at  length  his  belief  that  the 
ultimate  social  system  would  be  one  of  voluntary  associations  for  specific  ^arposes, 
each  member  retaining  his  independence  to  the  fullest  possible  extent.  He  also 
claimed  that  local  powers  would  increase  as  society  advanced,  so  that  in  the  end 
liberty  would  win  a  complete  victory  over  authority. 

3  They  must  agree  with  many  of  the  ideas  expressed  by  Tolstoi  in  My  Religion. 

4  See  Bancroft's  account  of  the  principles  of  the  Quakers,  History  of  the  United 


30 


POLITICAL  SCIENCE  QUARTERLY. 


[Vol.  IV. 


the  Communistic  Anarchists  arc  revolutionists  of  the  most 
violent  sort.  They  form  the  extreme  left  wing  of  the  modern 
revolutionary  movement.  They  teach  materialism  and  atheism 
in  their  most  revolting  forms.  The  method  which  they  propose 
to  use  for  the  destruction  of  society  and  the  institution  of  the 
new  order  is  beneath  scientific  consideration.  It  is  fit  only  to 
be  dealt  with  by  the  police  and  the  courts.  It  furnishes  the 
strongest  possible  proof  of  the  necessity  of  authority  and  of 
a  government  to  enforce  it.  Thus  the  plots  of  one  body  of  the 
anarchists  are  among  the  most  serious  obstacles  in  the  way  of 
society  ever  being  able  to  assume  that  form  which  the  other 
group  desires. 

IV.  Conclusions. 

Having  stated  as  objectively  as  possible  the  theory  of  an- 
archism, what  is  to  be  said  concerning  it  ? 

In  the  first  place  it  is  useless  to  claim  that  it  is  wholly  a  for- 
eign product,  and  for  that  reason  to  clamor  for  restrictions  upon 
immigration.  Newspaper  utterances  on  this  phase  of  the  sub- 
ject have  consisted  too  largely  of  appeals  to  ignorance  and 
prejudice.  There  probably  are  good  reasons  why  immigration 
should  be  restricted,  but  this  should  weigh  very  lightly  among 
them.  It  provokes  a  smile  when  we  think  that  the  agitation 
carried  on  by  a  few  thousand  anarchists  —  probably  not  more 
than  ten  thousand  in  all  —  should  force  this  people  to  change 
its  policy  in  so  important  a  matter  as  that  of  immigration.  Such 
a  suggestion  goes  to  confirm  what  the  socialists  say  about  the 
cowardice  of  the  bourgeoisie.  And  then,  unless  the  restrictions 
were  made  so  severe  as  to  check  the  peopling  of  this  country, 
the  spread  of  anarchism  would  not  be  prevented.  Such  crude 
means  do  not  reach  the  seat  of  opinion.  Anarchism,  so  far 
as  it  has  a  scientific  basis,  is,  like  socialism,  a  natural  product 
of  our  economic  and  political  conditions.  It  is  to  be  treated  as 
such,  both  theoretically  and  practically.    Anarchism  is  a  product 

States,  vol.  ii,  pp.  336-355:  "Intellectual  freedom,  the  supremacy  of  mind,  universal 
enfranchisement,  —  these  three  points  include  the  whole  of  Quakerism,  as  far  as  it 
belongs  to  civil  history. 


Xo.  i.] 


SCIENTIFIC  ANARCHISM. 


of  democracy.  It  is  as  much  at  home  on  American  soil  as  on 
European.  The  general  belief  to  the  contrary  is  one  of  the 
survivals  of  the  notion  that  Providence  has  vouchsafed  us  a 
peculiar  care  and  an  especial  enlightenment.  If  we  wished  to 
argue  that  anarchism  is  a  peculiar  and  characteristic  American 
product,  reasons  would  not  be  lacking.  Our  political  system  is 
based  on  the  ideas  of  liberty  and  equality.  The  minds  and  the 
writings  of  our  revolutionary  heroes  were  full  of  the  theory  of 
natural  rights  and  social  contract.  The  founder  of  one  of  our 
political  parties  was  a  living  embodiment  of  that  theory.  The 
anarchists  ask  for  no  better  statement  of  their  premises  than 
the  opening  sentences  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence. 
From  the  standpoint  of  the  doctrine  of  natural  rights,  it  is 
impossible  to  overthrow  their  argument.  Theoretically  no  fault 
can  be  found  with  the  way  in  which  Proudhon  dealt  with 
Rousseau,  nor  with  his  statement  of  what  he  considered  to  be 
the  true  doctrine.  But  Proudhon  by  his  analysis  showed  the 
total  lack  of  historical  basis  for  the  theory  in  any  form,  and  at 
the  same,  time  its  practical  absurdity.  It  appears,  then,  that 
we  might  expect  theoretical  anarchism  to  originate  either  in 
France  or  in  America,  because  in  those  countries  the  notion  of 
social  contract  has  played  the  greatest  role.  As  a  matter  of 
fact,  it  originated  independently  and  at  about  the  same  time 
in  both,  in  the  minds  of  Proudhon  and  of  Josiah  Warren,  and, 
leaving  Russia  for  good  reasons  out  of  the  account,  in  these 
countries  it  has  obtained  mo§t  of  its  adherents.  Then  our 
economic  conditions,  in  the  mining  and  manufacturing  districts 
and  large  cities,  are  so  far  similar  to  those  of  the  old  world,  that 
they  may  well  occasion,  when  combined  with  the  more  inde- 
pendent spirit  prevailing  here,  the  rise  of  theories  very  extreme 
in  their  nature.  Finally,  the  faults  in  our  political  system, 
especially  in  municipal  government  and  in  the  relations  between 
representatives  of  the  people  and  corporations,  are  such  as  to 
give  a  certain  amount  of  justification  to  the  criticisms  of  the 
anarchists.  These  things  furnish  the  food  upon  which  such 
criticism  thrives.  If  we  wish  to  find  the  source  of  anarchism, 
we  should  contemplate  the  extremes  of  poverty  and  wealth 


32 


POLITICAL  SCIENCE  QUARTERLY. 


[Vol.  IV. 


which  face  each  other  in  all  our  centres  of  population ;  weigh 
the  arrogance,  brutality  and  vice,  which  prevail  too  much  in  the 
employing  class,  over  against  the  disappointment,  hopelessness, 
and  positive  suffering  so  common  among  the  employed ;  study, 
until  it  is  definite  and  clear,  the  picture  of  manipulated  caucuses, 
purchased  ballots  and  falsified  returns,  of  bribery,  direct  or 
indirect,  in  the  halls  of  legislation,  of  political  deals  wherein 
the  interests  of  the  locality  or  the  country  are  sacrificed  for 
party  success,  of  efforts  on  the  part  of  the  great  majority  of 
public  men  to  secure  party  triumph  rather  than  the  country's 
weal ;  and  consider,  finally,  the  superficial  nature  of  the  ques- 
tions at  issue  in  nearly  all  political  contests.  In  certain  quar- 
ters of  this  country,  such  is  the  rapidity  with  which  one  political 
scandal  follows  another,  so  great  the  number  of  crimes  of  a 
semi-public  nature,  so  intense  and  essentially  brutal  the  struggle 
for  wealth  and  power,  that  one  is  at  times  almost  tempted  to 
say  with  Proudhon  that  we  are  living  in  a  state  of  anarchy. 
Our  civilization  at  its  great  centres  has  a  dark  side,  and  an 
exclusive  contemplation  of  this  side  will  make  a  pessimist  of  any 
man.  A  profound  dissatisfaction  with  very  much  that  exists 
in  our  political  and  social  system  is  widespread  among  our  most 
intelligent  population.  Those  who  would  look  to  the  state  for 
a  certain  amount  of  efficient  aid  in  solving  the  deeper  problems 
that  confront  us  are  always  met  by  the  thought :  if  this  plan 
should  be  carried  out,  it  will  enlarge  the  sphere  of  political  cor- 
ruption and  open  another  field  for  partisanship.  We  had  better 
not  increase  the  domain  of  state  action  till  we  have  a  better 
organized  state.  The  prevalent  distrust  of  our  legislative  bodies 
finds  utterance  in  all  newspapers  and  periodicals  and  even  in 
the  state  constitutions  themselves.  These  are  phenomena  to 
which  it  is  useless,  nay  dangerous,  to  shut  our  eyes.  The  cry 
of  sentimentalism  will  not  brush  them  aside.  They  are  tangible 
facts,  as  real  as  those  celebrated  in  the  song  of  triumphant 
democracy. 

But,  admitting  that  our  civilization  is  thus  imperfect,  does 
that  prove  that  it  is  wholly  bad  or  that  anarchism  has  anything 
better  to  offer  ?    It  is  noticeable  that  the  anarchist,  in  carrying 


No.  i.] 


SCIENTIFIC  ANARCHISM. 


33 


on  his  crusade  against  the  state,  avails  himself  of  the  freedom 
of  the  press  and  assembly,  and  of  the  protection  which  the  state 
gives  to  his  person  and  property  so  long  as  he  does  not  attempt 
to  destroy  the  life  or  property  of  anybody  else.  He  also  uses 
the  post  office,  the  telegraph,  the  railway  and  all  other  means 
at  hand  for  spreading  intelligence.  He  uses  the  printing  press, 
a  good  quality  of . paper,  and  movable  metal  type.  In  all  his 
daily  life  he  employs  commodities  and  lives  in  buildings  which 
have  been  produced  or  constructed  under  the  capitalistic  sys- 
tem of  production,  guaranteed  by  the  state.  He  makes  use  of 
knowledge  and  practical  experience,  formulates  scientific  truths, 
employs  arguments  and  illustrations,  appeals  to  moral  ideas  and 
motives,  which  have  been  developed  in  society  and  have  become 
its  common  possession  since  the  state  came  into  existence. 
Really  the  whole  substratum  of  his  work,  material,  mental,  and 
moral,  is  furnished  by  a  politically  organized  society.  The 
vantage  ground  on  which  he  stands,  and  from  which  he  works, 
is  not  of  his  own  construction,  but  has  been  built  for  him  by 
the  labor,  of  all  the  preceding  generations.  These  different 
classes  of  facts,  which  we  have  space  only  to  hint  at,  represent 
the  progress  of  civilization  hitherto ;  they  constitute  its  favor- 
able side,  and  should  be  marshalled  over  against  the  wrongs 
and  evils  mentioned  above.  How  did  the  anarchist  get  the  con- 
ception of  the  indefinite  perfectibility  of  man,  except  through  a 
knowledge  of  what  has  already  been  accomplished  ?  The  civil- 
ized man  is  so  far  in  advance  of,  the  savage  that  we  can  scarcely 
measure  the  difference.  But  all  this  progress  has  been  made 
since  government  originated ;  most  of  it  before  the  dogma  of 
popular  sovereignty  was  ever  heard  of.  It  was  achieved  in 
ages  when  the  control  of  the  state  reached  the  innermost  con- 
cerns of  the  individual,  when  in  fact  the  conception  of  an  indi- 
vidual apart  from  the  state  and  the  organic  whole  of  society  was 
not  known.  Shall  I  not  then  infer  that  the  state,  the  principle 
of  authority,  is  the  cause  of  all  good  ?  Would  it  not  be  quite  as 
logical  and  justifiable  as  to  argue  that  it  is  the  cause  of  all  evil  ? 
Would  not  the  former  conclusion  stand  the  test  of  historical  ex- 
amination quite  as  well  as  the  latter  ?  In  the  one  case  the  in- 
duction would  be  quite  as  satisfactory  as  in  the  other. 


34 


POLITICAL  SCIENCE  QUARTERLY. 


[Vol.  IV 


But  this  whole  method  of  reasoning,  whatever  the  purpose  for 
which  it  is  used,  is  fallacious.  No  social  or  political  institution, 
no  form  of  organization,  is  in  itself  responsible  for  all  the  evils 
of  society.  The  alleged  cause  is  not  adequate  to  produce  the 
result.  Here  is  one  of  the  fatal  errors  in  the  entire  socialistic 
and  anarchistic  argument.  Our  friends  of  that  way  of  thinking 
indulge  in  a  great  deal  of  denunciation ;  but  did  they  ever  show 
that  the  existence  of  the  state  and  of  private  property  makes  A 
cruel,  B  licentious,  C  avaricious,  when  they  would  not  be  so  to 
a  greater  or  less  degree  under  any  conceivable  organization 
of  society  ?  The  source  of  what  we  call  social  evil  is  in  the 
individual  and  in  the  limitations  of  external  nature.  Forms  of 
social  organization  have  their  influence,  but  it  is  wholly  sub- 
ordinate to  these  cardinal  facts.  Improvement  can  be  made  by 
civilizing  the  individual  and  adapting  his  social  surroundings  to 
his  enlarged  needs,  but  progress  is  inevitably  conditioned  by  the 
forces  of  the  world  within  us  and  the  world  around  us. 

The  perfection  of  the  individual  is  therefore  an  idle  dream. 
Man  has  lived  for  at  least  six  thousand  years  upon  the  earth, 
and,  after  making  allowance  for  all  the  changes  caused  by  in- 
creasing civilization,  the  fundamental  characteristics  of  human 
nature  remain  the  same.  Man  has  the  animal  qualities  com- 
bined with  the  spiritual.  He  needs  food,  shelter  and  rest.  In 
the  struggle  to  obtain  the  commodities  which  will  supply  these 
wants,  he  is  often  dominated  by  the  worst  forms  of  selfishness 
and  passion.  Because  the  supply  of  the  necessities  and  comforts 
of  life  is  at  least  relatively  limited,  men  monopolize  them.  Then 
the  development  of  social  inequality  begins.  The  degree  of 
knowledge,  foresight,  self-control  which  men  possess  is  limited 
and  exceedingly  variable.  The  results  which  they  achieve  differ 
in  proportion.  View  them  as  we  may,  these,  and  others  like 
them,  are  primary  facts  ;  they  lie  beyond  the  reach  of  forms  of 
organization.  They  are  always  to  be  taken  for  granted  in  dis- 
cussing any  social  system,  whether  real  or  ideal.  Every  scheme 
of  reform  must  adapt  itself  to  them.  Therefore  no  direct  prac- 
tical benefit  can  be  derived  from  imagining  a  form  of  society 
where  perfect  justice,  liberty,  and  equality  may  co-exist,  and 


Xo.  i.] 


SCIENTIFIC  ANARCHISM. 


35 


then  applying  it  as  a  criterion  to  the  existing  order.  There  is 
so  little  similarity  between  the  criterion  and  the  system  judged, 
that  no  satisfactory  conclusions  can  be  drawn.  We  must  deal 
with  realities  and  pursue  methods  of  reform  which  conserve  and 
promote  all  the  best  interests  of  society.  This  may  be  modest 
and  unattractive,  but  it  is  the  only  true  or  fruitful  method.  We 
admit  that  society  is  imperfect,  but  the  cause  of  imperfection 
lies  back  of  society.  If  the  institution  of  private  property  re- 
sults in  unnecessary  inequality,  it  is  because  it  is  controlled  by 
imperfect  men.  So  it  would  be  if  we  lived  in  voluntary  asso- 
ciations, or  under  any  other  imaginable  system.  Individuals 
would  remain  essentially  the  same,  and  the  old  phenomena 
of  inequality  would  continue.  The  introduction  of  Proudhon's 
system  of  credit  would  be  accompanied  by  a  great  financial 
crisis,  the  result  of  inflation.  It  would  tend  to  make  inflation 
chronic.  The  scheme,  as  conceived  by  Spooner,  would  work 
much  as  "wild-cat"  banking  did  before  the  crises  of  1819  and 
1837.  After  such  convulsions  in  the  business  world,  interest 
would  be.  certain  to  reappear,  and  it  would  be  the  salvation  of 
society  if  it  did.  As  men  are,  and  are  ever  likely  to  be,  to 
throw  off  restraint  would  be  equivalent  to  the  realization  in 
society  of  the  Darwinian  struggle  for  existence  and  survival  of 
the  fittest.  This  does  not  open  an  attractive  prospect  in  any 
event.  The  trouble  with  us  now,  especially  in  the  workings  of 
our  political  system,  is  that  fhe  purely  individualistic  motives 
are  given  too  full  swing.  TL^  cause  of  political  corruption  is 
the  predominance  of  self-seeking  over  public  spirit. 

For  a  justification  of  the  state  we  need  not  construct  any 
artificial  theory,  like  that  of  natural  rights  and  social  contract. 
It  came  into  existence  with  the  dawn  of  society ;  it  is  as  old  as 
the  individual.  The  existence  of  society  without  it,  that  is 
without  organization  and  power  in  the  organism  to  enforce  con- 
formity to  the  necessities  of  life  and  growth,  would  not  only  be 
contrary  to  all  experience,  but  is  absolutely  unthinkable.  To 
conceive  society  without  government,  the  anarchists  have  to 
construct  an  imaginary  individual ;  and  even  in  this  imaginary 
individual  there  is  the  possibility  of  lynch  law  and  of  the  evolu- 


36 


POLITICAL  SCIENCE  QUARTERLY. 


tion  of  jury  trial  and  state  prisons.  We  see  no  prospect  at 
present  of  the  lapse  of  society  into  the  Kleinstaaterei  of  the  old 
German  Empire,  or  into  a  state  where  all  public  questions  will 
have  to  be  decided  by  Polish  parliaments  with  the  liberum  veto 
in  full  operation. 

Still,  practically  the  only  answer  to  that  which  is  reasonable 
and  just  in  the  anarchistic  argument  is  the  pursuance  of  vigorous 
measures  of  political  and  social  reform,  which  shall  sweep  away 
the  evils  among  us  that  are  degrading  to  any  civilized  people. 

Herbert  L.  Osgood. 


tUSM 


